On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 5/2/2011 6:24 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
BTW, checked performance against previous version?
For 1:1 testing of the patterns that exist in test/testfnmatch.c,
100,000 iterations here on my box, 8626494 usec for the
On 5/3/2011 12:12 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 5/2/2011 6:24 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
BTW, checked performance against previous version?
For 1:1 testing of the patterns that exist in test/testfnmatch.c,
100,000
I just started playing and ran into this doc issue:
Index: include/apr_fnmatch.h
===
--- include/apr_fnmatch.h (revision 1098590)
+++ include/apr_fnmatch.h (working copy)
@@ -90,9 +90,9 @@
*
* PATTERN: [ followed by a
On 5/2/2011 12:44 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
That issue affects this type of pattern string:
res = apr_fnmatch(aaa[a*b, aaa[a*b, 0);
ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 0, res);
With the old code (1.3.x branch), it does not match. With the new
code, it does match.
Just sayin', for now. I'll
this fails unexpectedly:
res = apr_fnmatch(a?z, azz, 0);
ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 0, res);
this fails unexpectedly:
res = apr_fnmatch(a?z, a/z, 0);
ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 0, res);
this related testcase works:
res = apr_fnmatch(a?z, a/z, APR_FNM_PATHNAME);
ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, APR_FNM_NOMATCH, res);
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
this fails unexpectedly:
res = apr_fnmatch(a?z, a/z, 0);
ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 0, res);
same as the other one, I just got there with a different thought
Index: strings/apr_fnmatch.c
On 5/2/2011 5:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Index: strings/apr_fnmatch.c
===
--- strings/apr_fnmatch.c (revision 1098590)
+++ strings/apr_fnmatch.c (working copy)
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@
}
else if (**pattern ==
Index: strings/apr_fnmatch.c
===
--- strings/apr_fnmatch.c (revision 1098800)
+++ strings/apr_fnmatch.c (working copy)
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
* Both pattern and string are **char to support pointer increment of arbitrary
*
BTW, checked performance against previous version?
On 5/2/2011 6:24 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
BTW, checked performance against previous version?
For 1:1 testing of the patterns that exist in test/testfnmatch.c,
100,000 iterations here on my box, 8626494 usec for the new vs.
3674210 usec for the previous.
This seems consistent with the retests of
11 matches
Mail list logo