On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:50 AM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Beat Bolli wrote: > > Do you mean something like this? > > Yes! Ideally, though, you want to print those values closing to the match function (pcre_exec for PCRE1 or pcre2_[jit_]match for PCRE2 as they might change after they are extracted from the PCRE configuration with pcre[2]-config() > > If so, I'll wait a bit until it's clear whether Ævar's series [1] or my > > patch is going to be applied. > > Sounds fair FWIW they are both applied (yours all the way to next), but Ævar's changes now in pu (but likely to be rerolled soon) will most likely remove your code (as explained on Junio's emails) > However, my reading of those patches is that they still keep support for > JIT'ed and non-JIT'ed PCRE2 invocations (preferring the former if > available, without any UI to change Git's behavior in that respect), so > I would be surprised if this patch wasn't applicable after Ævar's > patches. the PCRE1 changes are significant enough that would break the current check and might need a more convoluted check to figure out if JIT was actually used by pcre_exec. more details in the configuration[1] Carlo [1] https://www.pcre.org/original/doc/html/pcrejit.html
