|
|
|
Home » U++ Library support » U++ Core » RegExp this'n that (RegExp update)
| RegExp this'n that [message #47047] |
Sun, 20 November 2016 16:30  |
luoganda
Messages: 211
Registered: November 2016
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
-updated to pcre v8.39, dated 2016...
-more reg submatches, before it was only around cca 10
Issues in v8.10 is that is has problems matching some stuff, issues with many |, or more than 10 submatches.
Original pcre source is taken from pcre website.
This was tested with upp9251 - since this version works on windows xp - latest does not.
I think it should be 'revisited' by someone and integrated in upp.
There is maybe one 'stuff' to revisit/check/fix, because it's defined in two places:
-max_pcre_offsets - look source and note-simmx.txt
~~~~~~~~~~~
This did not match in original upp pcre-8.10, in 8.39 it does(modified to match more than 10) - as it should:
RegExp re(
"(stuff)\\s+(\\d+)?\\s*(stuffx)?\\s*([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_-]*=(?:\".*\"|\'.*\'|[[:graph:]]*) )*\\s*(\".*?\");"
"|(stuff2)\\s+(\".*?\");"
"|(stuff3)\\s+(\".*?\".*?);"
"|(.*?);"
);
if(re.Match("tid nanu;"))PromptOK("matches"); |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RegExp this'n that [message #47096 is a reply to message #47047] |
Sun, 04 December 2016 14:45  |
luoganda
Messages: 211
Registered: November 2016
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Yes.
Newer version doesn't have problems around matching more that cca 10 captures, even if def max_pcre_offsets=30(default),
that's because some bugs were fixed - using default value 30 is ok for general usage(cca18stack_based), and more than
that, lib will use malloc(and copy some values there).
So for upp pcre optimal usage:
-config.h <=remove any max_pcre_offsets definitions(using 30 as defPcreDoesIsEnoughForMost,
that is (30*2)/3-2=18maxStackBasedCaptures
-pcre_exec.c <=modify lines near REC_STACK_SAVE_MAX into:
#ifdef pcre_max_stack_offsets
#define REC_STACK_SAVE_MAX pcre_max_stack_offsets
#else
#define REC_STACK_SAVE_MAX 30
#endif
-RegExp.h <=modify lines near
#ifdef pcre_max_stack_offsets
int pos[pcre_max_stack_offsets]; //must be multiple of 3
#else
int pos[30]; //original 30(okForMostOfGeneralStuff)=(30*2)/3=max 20-2(forErr)=18
capturedBackRefs stack based, else malloc is used(and copied!)
#endif
Now,if you want to fine tune RegExp stack based usage, define pcre_max_stack_offsets in TheIDE, or command line - multipleOf 3.
This matches in updated pcre version:
RegExp re(
"(00name)|(02name)|(03name)|(04name)|(05name)|(06name)|(07name)|(08name)|(09name)|(10name)|"
"(01name)|(12name)|(13name)|(14name)|(15name)|(16name)|(17name)|(18name)|(19name)|(20name)|"
"(21name)|(22name)|(23name)|(24name)|(25name)|(26name)|(27name)|(28name)|(29name)|(30name)|"
"(31name)|(32name)|(33name)|(34name)|(35name)|(36name)|(37name)|(38name)|(39name)|(40name)|"
"(41name)|(42name)|(43name)|(44name)|(45name)|(46name)|(47name)|(48name)|(49name)|(50name)|"
"(51name)|(52name)|(53name)|(54name)|(55name)|(56name)|(57name)|(58name)|(59name)|(60name)|"
"(61name)|(62name)|(63name)|(64name)|(65name)|(66name)|(67name)|(68name)|(69name)|(70name)|"
"(71name)|(72name)|(73name)|(74name)|(75name)|(76name)|(77name)|(78name)|(79name)|(80name)|"
"(81name)|(82name)|(83name)|(84name)|(85name)|(86name)|(87name)|(88name)|(89name)|(90name)|"
"(91name)|(92name)|(93name)|(94name)|(95name)|(96name)|(97name)|(98name)|(99name)|(100name)" //100
"(100name)|(102name)|(103name)|(104name)|(105name)|(106name)|(107name)|(108name)|(109name)|(110name)|"
"(101name)|(112name)|(113name)|(114name)|(115name)|(116name)|(117name)|(118name)|(119name)|(120name)|"
"(121name)|(122name)|(123name)|(124name)|(125name)|(126name)|(127name)|(128name)|(129name)|(130name)|"
"(131name)|(132name)|(133name)|(134name)|(135name)|(136name)|(137name)|(138name)|(139name)|(140name)|"
"(141name)|(142name)|(143name)|(144name)|(145name)|(146name)|(147name)|(148name)|(149name)|(150name)|"
"(151name)|(152name)|(153name)|(154name)|(155name)|(156name)|(157name)|(158name)|(159name)|(160name)|"
"(161name)|(162name)|(163name)|(164name)|(165name)|(166name)|(167name)|(168name)|(169name)|(170name)|"
"(171name)|(172name)|(173name)|(174name)|(175name)|(176name)|(177name)|(178name)|(179name)|(180name)|"
"(181name)|(182name)|(183name)|(184name)|(185name)|(186name)|(187name)|(188name)|(189name)|(190name)|"
"(191name)|(192name)|(193name)|(194name)|(195name)|(196name)|(197name)|(198name)|(199name)|(200name)" //200
"(200name)|(202name)|(203name)|(204name)|(205name)|(206name)|(207name)|(208name)|(209name)|(210name)|"
"(201name)|(212name)|(213name)|(214name)|(215name)|(216name)|(217name)|(218name)|(219name)|(220name)|"
"(221name)|(222name)|(223name)|(224name)|(225name)|(226name)|(227name)|(228name)|(229name)|(230name)|"
"(231name)|(232name)|(233name)|(234name)|(235name)|(236name)|(237name)|(238name)|(239name)|(240name)|"
"(241name)|(242name)|(243name)|(244name)|(245name)|(246name)|(247name)|(248name)|(249name)|(250name)|"
"(251name)|(252name)|(253name)|(254name)|(255name)|(256name)|(257name)|(258name)|(259name)|(260name)|"
"(261name)|(262name)|(263name)|(264name)|(265name)|(266name)|(267name)|(268name)|(269name)|(270name)|"
"(271name)|(272name)|(273name)|(274name)|(275name)|(276name)|(277name)|(278name)|(279name)|(280name)|"
"(281name)|(282name)|(283name)|(284name)|(285name)|(286name)|(287name)|(288name)|(289name)|(290name)|"
"(291name)|(292name)|(293name)|(294name)|(295name)|(296name)|(297name)|(298name)|(299name)|(300name)" //300
);
if(re.Match("300name"))PromptOK("Matches");
[Updated on: Sun, 04 December 2016 15:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RegExp this'n that: unneded creation of lib [message #47961 is a reply to message #47047] |
Thu, 27 April 2017 11:32 |
luoganda
Messages: 211
Registered: November 2016
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
when pcre package is used with non gcc compilers,
library is unnecesarily produced - it's not needed for upp:)
pcre lib internally defines PCRE_STATIC for gcc(which in upp prevents lib creation),
but for upp it can be defined for all compilers.
So, adding new compiler option to pcre pack with -DPCRE_STATIC
wont create unnecesary lib/exp/work(including msvc).
For pcre 'stack_based' case; for many tests it seems to work ok with ... pos[33] - in RegExp.h,
stuff in lib/config.h can be removed, REC_STACK_SAVE_MAX(in pcre_exec.c) can be set to 33
[Updated on: Thu, 27 April 2017 12:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RegExp this'n that [message #50079 is a reply to message #47047] |
Sun, 15 July 2018 23:09 |
luoganda
Messages: 211
Registered: November 2016
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
This does not match, but it's taken directly from pcre 8.xx manual.
It matches correctly on many pcreCompatibleOnlinePages,eg this one regexr, if testing - don't forget to check pcre there in right-upper corner and to use single '\' if copying down pattern.
Also, subfunc of Match func in this case produces an error(pcre_exec returns -5 which is PCRE_ERROR_UNKNOWN_OPCODE), but it's not cought by upp, that is - error funcs doesn't know about it, a silent error.
This should match a balanced '(...abc(...)abc...)' pattern.
String s="(abc)";
RegExp re("\\(([^()]++|(?R))*\\)");
if(re.Match(s))PromptOK("\1Matches");
if(re.IsError())PromptOK(String("\1RegExpErr: ")<<re.GetError());
Anyone has some idea why this is so?
[Updated on: Sun, 15 July 2018 23:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 25 20:46:45 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01015 seconds
|
|
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
