And I also want to ask again about possible change of regexp library. There are a lot of comments that some changes in FileCheck are useless, because they may be replaced by using some features of regular expressions, but they are not supported by current library. I don't know a lot about modern C++ regexp library, but there are: 1. PCRE(pcre.h) 2. std::regex. It has no necessary features. So it can't be taken. 3. There is regex library in boost. 4. Also there is regex library in poco. Are there any other variants? Thanks, Elena. -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:37 PM To: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements Hi all, I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits subscriber. But two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments (patch for CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok? Thanks, Elena. -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements> On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?) ago: the conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a new revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e. patch description)” > (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only worth it if there hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on on the existing revision) >Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have already been asked before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe the correct commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least harder to forget. Cheers _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
I had actually just meant in my comments to update the library we have, not switch to a brand new one. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> And I also want to ask again about possible change of regexp library. > There are a lot of comments that some changes in FileCheck are useless, > because they may be replaced by using some features of regular expressions, > but they are not supported by current library. > > I don't know a lot about modern C++ regexp library, but there are: > 1. PCRE(pcre.h) > 2. std::regex. It has no necessary features. So it can't be taken. > 3. There is regex library in boost. > 4. Also there is regex library in poco. > > Are there any other variants? > > Thanks, > Elena. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:37 PM > To: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi Amini < > mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements > > Hi all, > > I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits subscriber. But > two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments (patch for > CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok? > > Thanks, Elena. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Dean > Michael Berris via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM > To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements > > > > On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?) ago: the > conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a new > revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e. > patch description)” > > (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only worth it if there > hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on on the existing revision) > > > > Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have already been asked > before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe the correct > commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least harder to > forget. > > Cheers > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160719/8bb1df5c/attachment.html>
But as I understood current library is quite old and it is branched from OpenBSD library, and there are no new versions. Do you suggest to make changes in this version? From: James Y Knight [mailto:jyknight at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:51 PM To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> Cc: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements I had actually just meant in my comments to update the library we have, not switch to a brand new one. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: And I also want to ask again about possible change of regexp library. There are a lot of comments that some changes in FileCheck are useless, because they may be replaced by using some features of regular expressions, but they are not supported by current library. I don't know a lot about modern C++ regexp library, but there are: 1. PCRE(pcre.h) 2. std::regex. It has no necessary features. So it can't be taken. 3. There is regex library in boost. 4. Also there is regex library in poco. Are there any other variants? Thanks, Elena. -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:37 PM To: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com<mailto:dean.berris at gmail.com>>; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements Hi all, I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits subscriber. But two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments (patch for CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok? Thanks, Elena. -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements> On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?) ago: the conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a new revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e. patch description)” > (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only worth it if there hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on on the existing revision) >Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have already been asked before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe the correct commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least harder to forget. Cheers _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160719/fd26e512/attachment.html>