Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:45 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CFT] Unicode collation string and reworked locale definitions Message-ID: <BA8DB065-2D80-4136-9C93-C454444968E7@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20151103071758.GC31432@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <C3FA8B28-BC4B-4E6D-807D-679C09684128@FreeBSD.org> <20151103071758.GC31432@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Baptiste; > Il giorno 03/nov/2015, alle ore 02:17, Baptiste Daroussin = <bapt@FreeBSD.org> ha scritto: >=20 > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:59:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> First of all, congratulations to Baptiste and Marino for succeeding = where >> I failed many moons ago. Also huge thanks to Nexenta and Garret = D=E2=80=99Amore >> for relicensing localedef for us. >>=20 >> Concerning regex; >>=20 >> Gabor@ did a lot of work on libtre but according to him it was not up = to the >> task performancewise. We would also lose features if we move to = libtre. >>=20 >> I think our regex code actually has most of what is needed for = multibyte >> already. I have a patch that turns on the functionality but I = haven=E2=80=99t found >> any brave soul that will do the testing: >>=20 >> https://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/patches/regex-multibyte.diff >>=20 > I think it this can be tested once the collation branch is merged. Absolutely: support for collation is critical and badly needed even = without resolving the regex issues. > Note that > dragonfly and musl libc both uses a patched version of libtre for the = regex > implementation. >=20 I am aware. Also note that Gabor had some patches too, in order to make it usable for bsdgrep: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Regex > =46rom my non scientific testing libtre was more reliable and = performant then our > current regex. According to Gabor, the general performance was better until you take = into account multibyte support where it was clearly inferior to GNU regex. > Anyway it will be relatively "easy" to test using the AT&T > testsuite the reliability and performance of both implementations: = ours + your > patch and patched libtre. >=20 What worries me about libtre is that it lacks important functionality = like word delimiters. We even brought the sysv delimiters to be more compatible = with Solaris and GNU and we can=E2=80=99t back those out now: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D268066 Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BA8DB065-2D80-4136-9C93-C454444968E7>