From: Larry M. <lm...@bi...> - 2012-12-28 00:25:03
|
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 04:17:22PM -0800, Jeff Hobbs wrote: > On 2012-12-27, at 4:09 PM, Larry McVoy <lm...@bi...> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 04:06:42PM -0800, Jeff Hobbs wrote: > >> Note that before these changes, Tcl was > 2x worse on some of the > >> above IO-focused benchmarks. Also there is the aspect of using PCRE, > >> which cut the grep cost by 1/3. I'd say Tcl 9 should seriously consider > >> dropping Spencer in favor of PCRE or other engine. There is a slightly > >> outdate patch posted already for making Spencer and PCRE co-exist and > >> be switchable (right to the byte code level). > > > > We use Jeff's PCRE patch in our fork of Tcl (that we need to merge forward > > to 8.6 and release). We like it but the patch was incomplete, it breaks > > tests (that is my memory, it's possible we are based on a version of tcl > > that didn't pass tests). > > It still breaks tests? Anything meaningful? I did provide a few patches over time so what's in L should be not the same as the patch on the Tcl SF patch list. We'll do a push to merge forward and get the latest patch, I'll report back. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com |