Discussion:
[PING] [PATCH 00/17] Regex: Make libc regex more usable outside GLIBC
(too old to reply)
Paul Eggert
2017-12-19 17:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/19/2017 04:52 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Again, my understanding is we still aim to keep it in sync with gnulib,
> so I think we should first integrate with current gnulib code on glibc
> side (in same approach as we did for current glob changes).

As I understand it, Arnold's patches are against glibc. Arnold, would it
be too much trouble to rebase them against gnulib instead? I could take
a look at the result. I expect that many (most?) of these changes are
already in Gnulib, so the result should be easier for you to generate
than the original (and also be easier for me to review).

CC:ing this to bug-gnulib. For gnulib readers, this thread starts here:

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-12/msg00237.html
Adhemerval Zanella
2017-12-19 17:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/12/2017 15:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 04:52 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Again, my understanding is we still aim to keep it in sync with gnulib,
>> so I think we should first integrate with current gnulib code on glibc
>> side (in same approach as we did for current glob changes).
>
> As I understand it, Arnold's patches are against glibc. Arnold, would it be too much trouble to rebase them against gnulib instead? I could take a look at the result. I expect that many (most?) of these changes are already in Gnulib, so the result should be easier for you to generate than the original (and also be easier for me to review).
>
> CC:ing this to bug-gnulib. For gnulib readers, this thread starts here:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-12/msg00237.html
>

I will check on sync glibc regex with gnulib so the possible step
will require less work.
Zack Weinberg
2017-12-19 18:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Adhemerval Zanella
<***@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19/12/2017 15:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 04:52 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> Again, my understanding is we still aim to keep it in sync with gnulib,
>>> so I think we should first integrate with current gnulib code on glibc
>>> side (in same approach as we did for current glob changes).
>>
>> As I understand it, Arnold's patches are against glibc. Arnold, would it be too much trouble to rebase them against gnulib instead? I could take a look at the result. I expect that many (most?) of these changes are already in Gnulib, so the result should be easier for you to generate than the original (and also be easier for me to review).

I agree that syncing first with gnulib is the way to go. Also,
Arnold, I think you should be aware that glibc is coming up on a
release freeze, so reviewers' time is going to be focused on
higher-urgency stuff for the next month or so. I will try to find
time to assist with these patches but it won't be till January.

zw
a***@skeeve.com
2017-12-19 19:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello.

Thanks for cluing me into the discussion.

> As I understand it, Arnold's patches are against glibc. Arnold, would it
> be too much trouble to rebase them against gnulib instead?

Absolutely too much trouble. Sorry.

I think that most or all of the changes are in gnulib's regex, but
the gnulib regex has too many changes (Idx instead of int everywhere,
to name the main one) for me to be willing to try and figure it out.

I think it will be actually easier to merge my changes in and then
compare to gnulib, but that's up to you.

> I agree that syncing first with gnulib is the way to go.

Not in my humble opinion, but I'm not doing the work. (:-)

> Also, Arnold, I think you should be aware that glibc is coming up
> on a release freeze, so reviewers' time is going to be focused on
> higher-urgency stuff for the next month or so. I will try to find time
> to assist with these patches but it won't be till January.

OK, thanks for letting me know what things are like on the glibc team.
I won't ping about this again until mid- or late January.

I do appreciate that the trend is to merge with gnulib; that will
ultimately be a good thing so I am encouraged by it.

Thanks,

Arnold
Carlos O'Donell
2017-12-20 03:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/19/2017 11:42 AM, ***@skeeve.com wrote:
> I do appreciate that the trend is to merge with gnulib; that will
> ultimately be a good thing so I am encouraged by it.

I just committed the obvious comment fixes into glibc.

I expect Paul to commit something similar to gnulib and that way we
won't have a difference there.

--
Cheers,
Carlos.
Paul Eggert
2017-12-20 06:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/19/2017 07:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I just committed the obvious comment fixes into glibc.
>
> I expect Paul to commit something similar to gnulib

Already done, way back in 2012 when I wrote and installed spelling-check
fixes for Gnulib, here:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=a4d796fb141dac5d85328872e2fefbd5c44870e1

Arnold kindly broke out regex-related spelling fixes, the ones that you
just now installed (and thanks).
Loading...