--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1049
Zoltan Herczeg hzmes...@freemail.hu changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1202
--- Comment #6 from Zoltan Herczeg hzmes...@freemail.hu 2012-01-24 09:33:28
---
It seems I broke something with this patch in 16 bit mode... :( I will check it
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1202
--- Comment #7 from Zoltan Herczeg hzmes...@freemail.hu 2012-01-24 09:56:33
---
(In reply to comment #6)
It seems I broke something with this patch in 16 bit
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, ND wrote:
May be it can be useful to combine our approaches to reduce the number of
cases when zero-length partial match may occur?
So, zero-length partial match is allowed when:
1. it arises within a lookahead
AND
2. pattern have lookbehind with non-zero length
I
On 2012-01-24 10:22, Philip Hazel wrote:
PCRE could tell the application the maximum lookbehind length, but what
it cannot tell is whether there is a lookbehind further along the path
that is being matched. So I don't think it should change its result.
However, an application can choose to
