On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Ok with those changes.
Committed.
Thanks!
--
Tim Shen
a.patch
Description: Binary data
On 10/19/2013 11:28 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
I see. Here's the macro version. Thanks!
Mostly Ok, but the macro is completely undocumented. Please change the
comment which says: "... more than certain number of quantifiers..." to
actually mention the macro, thus, say: "... more than
_GLIBCXX_REGEX_D
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Yes, but giving it a name doesn't buy us much wrt the issue I pointed out.
> For comparison, in similar cases, the compiler driver has --params which the
> user can fine tune on the command line. The best approximation we have got
> in the li
On 10/19/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
About the < 2, in general hardcoding a parameter value in the code isn't a
nice idea. Why don't we take it out to a macro, say
_GLIBCXX_REGEX_NFA_QUANTIFIERS_LIMIT? In stl_deque.h we have something
sim
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> About the < 2, in general hardcoding a parameter value in the code isn't a
> nice idea. Why don't we take it out to a macro, say
> _GLIBCXX_REGEX_NFA_QUANTIFIERS_LIMIT? In stl_deque.h we have something
> similar and in the present case it wou
Hi,
On 10/19/2013 05:53 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
As the comment in this patch said, DFS approach is faster in simple
regex, but exponentially slower in complex(many quantifier) cases.
Actually I suggest to use DFS where number of quantifiers < 2, to
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
> As the comment in this patch said, DFS approach is faster in simple
> regex, but exponentially slower in complex(many quantifier) cases.
Actually I suggest to use DFS where number of quantifiers < 2, to make
this 'optimization' more conservative.
