to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
After r327219 was landed, the bot with expensive checks on GreenDragon
started failing. The problem was missing symbols `regex_t` and
`regmatch_t` in `xlocale/_regex.h`. The latter was included because
after the change in r327219, `random` is needed, which transitively
includes `xlocale.h.` which in turn conditionally includes
`xlocale/_regex.h` when _REGEX_H_ is defined. Because this is the header
guard in `regex_impl.h` and because `regex_impl.h` was included before
the other LLVM includes, `xlocale/_regex.h` was included without the
necessary types being available.
This commit fixes this by moving the include of `regex_impl.h` all the
way down. I also added a comment to stress the significance of its
position.
llvm-svn: 327256
Crash was possible if match() method
was called on object that was moved or object
created with empty constructor.
Testcases updated.
DIfferential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24123
llvm-svn: 280473
initializers not being in the same order as the members.
Specifically, 'preg' is the first member followed by 'error', so they
will be initialized in that order and should be written in the member
initializer list in that order.
For the constructor in question, there is no change in behavior.
llvm-svn: 280345
This is useful when need to defer the construction,
e.g. using Regex as a member of class.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24101
llvm-svn: 280339
The old AddFixedStringToRegEx() it was based on got away with this for the
longest time, but the problem became easy to spot after the cleanup in r197096.
Also add a quick unit test to cover regex escaping.
llvm-svn: 197121
This will be used to implement an optimisation for literal entries
in special case lists.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1278
llvm-svn: 187731
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
appropriate unit tests. This change in itself is not expected to
affect any functionality at this point, but it will serve as a
stepping stone to improve FileCheck's variable matching capabilities.
Luckily, our regex implementation already supports backreferences,
although a bit of hacking is required to enable it. It supports both
Basic Regular Expressions (BREs) and Extended Regular Expressions
(EREs), without supporting backrefs for EREs, following POSIX strictly
in this respect. And EREs is what we actually use (rightly). This is
contrary to many implementations (including the default on Linux) of
POSIX regexes, that do allow backrefs in EREs.
Adding backref support to our EREs is a very simple change in the
regcomp parsing code. I fail to think of significant cases where it
would clash with existing things, and can bring more versatility to
the regexes we write. There's always the danger of a backref in a
specially crafted regex causing exponential matching times, but since
we mainly use them for testing purposes I don't think it's a big
problem. [it can also be placed behind a flag specific to FileCheck,
if needed].
For more details, see:
* http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-November/055840.html
* http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121126/156878.html
llvm-svn: 168802
