From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A01920D09 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:11:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752028AbdDOILO (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:11:14 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:61588 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbdDOILK (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:11:10 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61C878635; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:11:08 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=rI6x39qvxwjw ZkEcZ3rBgs81mTA=; b=eEvJhcXbovN8AR3UcE6wt5WZabW2JXmb42VjyUF53sat VjTIjXHrS5p7SNTCRzjKhAQN5a6dEHEZlXD7tXyg3LpgxomI/MJNYeXzuGXSDXlN IfdHAbi3hQsUAZoSL7odYqIrLPo+3VO1KUcASgsS//iBcaLElbOh37MGLw0He2I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EsgBjv oo0oXOsrIccH16s0vx1ZrLBq2yXuRQxQ1coa3ZPqmeU313gdcQRAOhTl1Fikk2SJ iKl2J/O80Pm/bKEFSGYu0IYMQcXcHR/PERqTfvYjC/muhDd49aeJ4esATJEXWsqB EPZ9HyN8GW2Q75y1vZBlPNMBZ97jjDYm1jvo8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDABB78634; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EBB478632; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:11:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeffrey Walton , =?utf-8?Q?Mi?= =?utf-8?Q?cha=C5=82?= Kiedrowicz , J Smith , Victor Leschuk , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] PCREv2 & more References: <20170408132506.5415-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20170411104739.xzhxggpufvwgr3fu@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 01:11:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170411104739.xzhxggpufvwgr3fu@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2017 06:47:39 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 14688CC0-21B3-11E7-A73F-E680B56B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 01:24:54PM +0000, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 = Bjarmason wrote: > >> This adds PCRE v2 support, but as I was adding that I kept noticing >> other related problems to fix. It's all bundled up into the same >> series because much of it conflicts because it modifies the same test >> or other code. Notes on each patch below. > > Overall, the series looks OK to me. > > I'm not sure if it is worth all the complexity to carry pcre1/pcre2 as > run-time options. That does make it easier to do back-to-back > comparisons, but it makes the code a lot more complicated. In particula= r > I'm worried about subtle cases where we pcre1 turns into pcre2 (or vice > versa) by use of the aliases. That shouldn't matter to a user for > correctness, but it would throw off the benchmarking. > > If we literally just added USE_LIBPCRE2 and built against one or the > other, then all the complexity would be limited to a few #ifdefs. The > big drawback AFAICT is that anybody doing timing tests would have to > recompile in between. Yeah, having to dl two libs at runtime, even when you would ever use just one in a single run, is less than ideal. A small downside inflicted on everybody will add up to million times more than a larger downside only suffered by developers, so I tend to agree with you that we probably should simplify to choose just one (or zero) at compile time. > So I dunno. I had hoped libpcre2 would be a hands-down win on timing, > but it sounds like there's a little back-and-forth depending on the > context. Is there a ticking clock on pcre1 going away? I suspect it wil= l > be around for many years to come, but if they'll continue optimizing > pcre2 but not pcre1, then it may make sense to hitch our wagon to the > one that upstream is actually working on.