On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:45:32PM +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> [snip]
>
> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
> + ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
> + else
> + ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
> +#else
> ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol - line,
> 0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
> +#endif
Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the duplication and
unconditionally use the old pcre_exec() call? Something like
this:
+#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
+ if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
+ ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
+ eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
+ else
+#endif
ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol - line,
0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
> if (ret < 0 && ret != PCRE_ERROR_NOMATCH)
> die("pcre_exec failed with error code %d", ret);
> if (ret > 0) {
> @@ -394,7 +420,16 @@ static int pcre1match(struct grep_pat *p, const char *line, const char *eol,
> static void free_pcre1_regexp(struct grep_pat *p)
> {
> pcre_free(p->pcre1_regexp);
> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on) {
> + pcre_free_study(p->pcre1_extra_info);
> + pcre_jit_stack_free(p->pcre1_jit_stack);
> + } else {
> + pcre_free(p->pcre1_extra_info);
> + }
> +#else
> pcre_free(p->pcre1_extra_info);
> +#endif
Same here. The pcre_free() is the same with and without the
ifdef.
Regards
Simon
--
+ privacy is necessary
+ using gnupg http://gnupg.org
+ public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9