Edi Weitz [edi(a)agharta.de] wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:40:29 -0500, Kick Damien-DKICK1
> <DKICK1(a)motorola.com> wrote:
> > Can you reproduce this behavior on your GNU/Linux setup?
> No. But I /think/ I've found the bug. The reason I couldn't
> reproduce your results seems to be that you either didn't compile
> CL-PPCRE or that you used a "safe core" or somesuch. [...]
<nod> Yeah, I compiled CL-PPCRE after having removed the optimization
declarations via reader macros, #-:CL-PPCRE-SAFE-AND-SLOW, per the tar
ball I sent you a while back. It was too difficult to try and
determine from where the problem was originating with everything
compiled with maximal optimization and minimal safety.
For example:
% diff -u scanner.lisp@@/main/kick_lti--e3-base/2 scanner.lisp
--- scanner.lisp@@/main/kick_lti--e3-base/2 Fri Mar 5 02:36:37 2004
+++ scanner.lisp Sat Mar 6 17:35:27 2004
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@
(return-from bmh-matcher (1+ i)))))))))
(defun create-bmh-matcher (pattern case-insensitive-p)
+ #-:cl-ppcre-safe-and-slow
(declare (optimize speed
(safety 0)
(space 0)
@@ -101,6 +102,7 @@
thereis (and (,char-compare (schar *string* i) chr) i)))))
(defun create-char-searcher (chr case-insensitive-p)
+ #-:cl-ppcre-safe-and-slow
(declare (optimize speed
(safety 0)
(space 0)
@@ -119,6 +121,7 @@
(declaim (inline newline-skipper))
(defun newline-skipper (start-pos)
+ #-:cl-ppcre-safe-and-slow
(declare (optimize speed
(safety 0)
(space 0)
@@ -328,6 +331,7 @@
rep-num
zero-length-num
reg-num)
+ #-:cl-ppcre-safe-and-slow
(declare (optimize speed
(safety 0)
(space 0)
> [...] Anyway, please try if you still get your bug with this
> version: [...]
I'll let you know the results as soon as I've had a chance to try it.