Hi Denys, I know it would take you time to do, but could you compare against libtre (which changed licence to LGPL some time ago) too? It's a dormant project now, but the author claims "Strict standard conformance" and that it is "Small in code size". I wonder if it could replace both the 'old' and 'new' implementations!
http://www.laurikari.net/tre/ Greetings, Alexander On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:00:23AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Thursday 25 December 2008 18:58, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > "New" regex results > > > > testregex: > > TEST testregex basic, 533 tests, 6 errors > > TEST testregex categorize, 21 tests, 0 errors > > TEST testregex forcedassoc, 47 tests, 9 errors > > TEST testregex interpretation, 148 tests, 6 signals, 36 errors > > TEST testregex leftassoc, 16 tests, 8 errors > > TEST testregex nullsubexpr, 112 tests, 2 signals, 3 errors > > TEST testregex repetition, 81 tests, 5 errors > > TEST testregex rightassoc, 20 tests, 4 errors > > I fixed the bug (which wasn't in regex, rather in my memset > (embarrasing, yeah)), and now it looks like: > > TEST testregex basic, 538 tests, 1 error > TEST testregex categorize, 19 tests, 0 errors > TEST testregex forcedassoc, 47 tests, 9 errors > TEST testregex interpretation, 166 tests, 6 signals, 18 errors > TEST testregex leftassoc, 16 tests, 8 errors > TEST testregex nullsubexpr, 112 tests, 2 signals, 3 errors > TEST testregex repetition, 81 tests, 5 errors > TEST testregex rightassoc, 20 tests, 4 errors > > Again, old regex results: > > > testregex: > > TEST testregex basic, 538 tests, 1 error > > TEST testregex categorize, 21 tests, 0 errors > > TEST testregex forcedassoc, 47 tests, 9 errors > > TEST testregex interpretation, 167 tests, 6 signals, 17 errors > > TEST testregex leftassoc, 16 tests, 8 errors > > TEST testregex nullsubexpr, 83 tests, 32 errors > > TEST testregex repetition, 79 tests, 8 errors > > TEST testregex rightassoc, 20 tests, 4 errors > > so new regex is a bit more correct here.... > > In tst-regex2, it works 100% correctly now, and is much faster > than old one. > > tst-regexloc still fails. > -- > vda > _______________________________________________ > uClibc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc -- Alexander van Heukelum _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
