On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:12:15PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
If you've been watching CVS, you may have noticed that I checked in some
new files named wildmatch.c and wildmatch.h. This code implements the
shell-style wildcard matching with rsync's extension that ** matches a
/ but * and ?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:40:29AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
I see you have make the transition.
Yes! My simple speed tests I ran the other day showed that the code was
a good bit faster than the default fnmatch on my system, and just barely
faster than the lib/fnmatch.c routine we used to
Quoting Wayne Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you've been watching CVS, you may have noticed that I checked in
some
new files named wildmatch.c and wildmatch.h. This code implements the
shell-style wildcard matching with rsync's extension that ** matches
[...]
build farm. One thing I
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:02:16PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Why the name wildmatch?
The code is based on Rich Salz's wildmat.c, but it has been extended a
little by me, so I re-named it wildmatch.c (mainly because I reordered
the text/pattern args from the wildmat() order to the fnmatch()
If you've been watching CVS, you may have noticed that I checked in some
new files named wildmatch.c and wildmatch.h. This code implements the
shell-style wildcard matching with rsync's extension that ** matches a
/ but * and ? does not. I have also checked in a new test module
which has allowed
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:12:15PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
If you've been watching CVS, you may have noticed that I checked in some
new files named wildmatch.c and wildmatch.h. This code implements the
shell-style wildcard matching with rsync's extension that ** matches a
/ but * and ?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:15:22PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
If i may ask, why this change?
I appear to have accidentally left that out this time (though I did
mention it long ago when discussing the fixes I wanted to make to the
exclude code).
The big thing this does is to make ** and * work
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:48:15PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:15:22PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
If i may ask, why this change?
I appear to have accidentally left that out this time (though I did
mention it long ago when discussing the fixes I wanted to make to the
