On Friday 26 December 2008 12:12, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > 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/
Looked at it. It is a bit bigger than "new" regex. Maybe with different gcc options it will be on par. Also it does not provide GNU regex API - re_search[_2] and re_match[_2] functions, it provides only POSIX one. Massaging it into supporting GNU regex API should be possible, but not totally trivial. Someone needs to check first whether it actually is better than what we already have... I had to look closer at "new" regex and it is actually not very bad. A few cleanup passes should be enough to make it readable. -- vda _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
