Thanks, this patch was installed into grep in June so I'm marking the bug report
as done.
Also, I installed the attached two patches as followup. The first is because
I've run into too many compilers that complain about 'static const int x;' on
the grounds that x should have an initializer. Re
This all sounds good, thanks. Your attachment was a submodule diff (basically, a
pair of git commit IDs), so not much to review.
I have some dfa.c-related changes pending. I assume it'll be OK for me to commit
them to grep as needed, and that when you make the switch you'll grab the
then-curre
Rishabh Dave wrote:
./configure: line 7227: syntax error near unexpected token `0.9.0'
./configure: line 7227: `PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG(0.9.0)'
My guess is your version of pkg-config is too old.
Also, it looks like your output is not from a fresh build. Maybe there is
leftover from a previou
Now that two gnulib-using packages are using grep's DFA matcher, I am
going to move that code into gnulib, so there is one clear source of
truth.
GNU sed began using dfa.[ch] very recently.
While gawk has been copying grep's dfa.[ch] for a long time, it does
not use gnulib.
To that end, I've writ
Thanks for doing all that, Jim. I'm closing the bug report.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
>> The pcre-jitstack test case fails on Mac OS X due to the system base64
>> expecting either '-D or --decode' rather than '-d or --decode'. The
>> trivial fix is to use the common '--dec
Hello,
I am trying to build the source code from git repository but came
across this error -
./configure: line 7227: syntax error near unexpected token `0.9.0'
./configure: line 7227: `PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG(0.9.0)'
I did lookup for "syntax error near unexpected token" with
"PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG
Now, state indexes for state 0 state 0 are 0 for CTX_NEWLINE context,
D->initstate_notbol for CTX_NONE context and D->min_trcount - 1 for
CTX_LETTER. The patch uses them instead of calling state_index().
From bb5fc2fa08e9f2b17d147c3649328254deb84166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norihiro Tanaka
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:35:22 +0900
Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
> I updated the patch due to change in bug#21486, and added a patch
> including a minor change.
I wrote third patch. After first patch, we do not have to separate next
state by context, transit_state() never treats a eol-byte as current
