On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:49:10AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > = Someone must test its compatibility with GNU regex and understand in > = details nature of their changes/fixes/differences. Without this work we > = can't blindly replace stable code with unknown one just for reason it is > = actively maintained. > > What kind of test would be deemed sufficient? I don't have anything at hand, but I saw a tests in some regex implementations I don't remember now. Perhaps someone else knows good regex test suits? The common bottle neck is locale: collating, multibyte and character classes handling. I can test it excepting multibyte, our multibyte-enabled developers needed. What must be tested before as primary target: general POSIX compatibility. What must be tested in second: GNU regex compatibility. -- http://ache.pp.ru/Received on Tue Oct 24 2006 - 13:35:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:01 UTC