search for: dinkumwar

...he best code >> size you can >> get is to link to the one already in your address space because >> it's part of >> libc. > > There are multiple ones that have been created that fullfill > std::regex that work just fine on C++98, such as boost::regex and > dinkumware's and I know there is at least one other. I think you're missing the whole "we value small code size more than speed of matching" thing. -Chris

...int here. We care about code size in llvm, and the best code size you can > get is to link to the one already in your address space because it's part of > libc. There are multiple ones that have been created that fullfill std::regex that work just fine on C++98, such as boost::regex and dinkumware's and I know there is at least one other. On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>>  2. Use POSIX regcomp facilities. This implies importing some >>> implementation of this...

>From: Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> >Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:18:00 +0200 >If VC6 is not doing something wrong with templates... ;-/ As far as I know is template handling a part of some C++ ISO standard. Then, MS should adhere to this... However, what you objects against is that MS didn't implement STL the way STL should be implemented. And the reason to

On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> 2. Use POSIX regcomp facilities. This implies importing some >> implementation of this interface, e.g., Windows. On Linux, BSD, etc. >> we would try to use the platform version if available (and non- >> buggy). > > Don't do it. > They are ridiculous slow, and posix made some really dumb choices in >

...; library less horrible than what regexec provides. > > Again, forget boost regex. :) What about std::regex? It is even now still a lot more standard then regexec (which does not exist on my platform). Of which Boost just happens to have a fully standards conforming implementation (as does dinkumware too I think...). In comparison (since you mentioned horrible interfaces), how about something simple like returning a float followed by a pipe followed by an integer list separated by commas and parsing it into a std::pair<float,vector<int> > myPair; Also, I might be wrong on some of...

On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:50 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Dunbar<daniel at zuster.org> > wrote: >> This is too heavy, and we don't need the extra features, and regexec >> is well tested and much more standard. Unless there is an >> overwhelming > > 'regexec' I had never heard of, figured it was a library, turns

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > > I think I now understand some of the disconnect you and I are having, and I think some of the pushback you’re getting from the community is the same. You’re talking about where you want to start with an LLVM libc. Many in the community (myself included) want to understand where we’ll get with this libc. At