search for: doxymented

...gt;> +    bool matches(const char *string, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>> +    bool match_sub(const char *string, llvm_regmatch_t pmatch[], >>> +                   unsigned nmatch, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>> >> >> These should be doxymented, and I don't understand the flags. Does this mean >> that if I *don't* compile with NEWLINE, but *do* want ^/$ support, then >> notbol/noteol need to be false? Do we care about use cases that care about this? >> Could we just always have them as false? >> > > T...

...har *string, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>>> + bool match_sub(const char *string, llvm_regmatch_t pmatch[], >>>> + unsigned nmatch, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>>> >>>> >>> These should be doxymented, and I don't understand the flags. Does this mean >>> that if I *don't* compile with NEWLINE, but *do* want ^/$ support, then >>> notbol/noteol need to be false? Do we care about use cases that care about this? >>> Could we just always have them as false? >>...

...g. >> + >> + bool matches(const char *string, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >> + bool match_sub(const char *string, llvm_regmatch_t pmatch[], >> + unsigned nmatch, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >> > > These should be doxymented, and I don't understand the flags. Does this mean > that if I *don't* compile with NEWLINE, but *do* want ^/$ support, then > notbol/noteol need to be false? Do we care about use cases that care about this? > Could we just always have them as false? > They are meant for case...

...ess regex was compiled with NEWLINE flag. > + > + bool matches(const char *string, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); > + bool match_sub(const char *string, llvm_regmatch_t pmatch[], > + unsigned nmatch, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); These should be doxymented, and I don't understand the flags. Does this mean that if I *don't* compile with NEWLINE, but *do* want ^/$ support, then notbol/noteol need to be false? Do we care about use cases that care about this? Could we just always have them as false? As mentioned before I think we can change the...

On 2009-08-24 20:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 23, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Török Edwin wrote: >> If LLVM is going to have an integrated regex library I suggest using it >> regardless if the platform has one. >> The LLVM integrated regex library will provide consistent behaviour and >> execution time, the system one will not. > > Hi Edwin, > > Can you propose

..., bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>>>> +    bool match_sub(const char *string, llvm_regmatch_t pmatch[], >>>>> +                   unsigned nmatch, bool notbol=false, bool noteol=false); >>>>> >>>>> >>>> These should be doxymented, and I don't understand the flags. Does this mean >>>> that if I *don't* compile with NEWLINE, but *do* want ^/$ support, then >>>> notbol/noteol need to be false? Do we care about use cases that care about this? >>>> Could we just always have them as fal...

On Aug 23, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > If LLVM is going to have an integrated regex library I suggest using > it > regardless if the platform has one. > The LLVM integrated regex library will provide consistent behaviour > and > execution time, the system one will not. Hi Edwin, Can you propose the openbsd implementation as a patch to lib/support? -Chris