Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
BTW, checked performance against previous version?

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 * m

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Trawick 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 ===

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
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);

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
this fails unexpectedly: res = apr_fnmatch("a?z", "azz", 0); ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 0, res);

Re: apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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

Re: apr 1.4.3

2011-05-02 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 5/2/2011 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Anticipated timeline for release: > > * Jeff to review/test wrowe's fnmatch rewrite today (Monday) > * someone else do the same??? Stefan was interested in it. I'm building upon a list of patterns in test/testfnmatch.c designed to tickle bugs, not looki

apr_fnmatch deltas

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
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

Re: [PATCH] doxygen patch for apr_os_thread_equal()

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Stefan Ruppert wrote: > Hi all, > > attached you will find a small doxygen patch for the apr_os_thread_equal() > function. I looked for the correct return value and needed to consult the > pthread_equal() man page... ;-) apr_portable.h now fixed in 1.4.x through tr

[PATCH] Fix ldap_set_rebind_proc detection with gcc 4.6

2011-05-02 Thread İsmail Dönmez
Hi; Gcc now correctly warns for set but unused variables(-Wunused-but-set-variable) and this causes a compile error while detecting ldap_set_rebind_proc argument count because the tmp variable is set but unused. Attached patch fixes this by simply using (void)tmp; to make gcc happy. Regards, isma

apr 1.4.3

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
Anticipated timeline for release: * Jeff to review/test wrowe's fnmatch rewrite today (Monday) * someone else do the same??? * Jeff handles T&R of apr-1.4.3 as soon as a couple of people have spoken up * apr-1.4.3 testing/voting over 3 days, re-roll if necessary * joint release/announce of apr-1.4