Support scan_substring in jit #447
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zherczeg
force-pushed
the
scan_substring_jit
branch
2 times, most recently
from
213764e to
4ccbfe2
Compare
|
I have added tests for repetition |
zherczeg
force-pushed
the
scan_substring_jit
branch
from
4ccbfe2 to
bcc72d7
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The first patch for jit support.
Notes:
I have noticed that repeats are not supported for scan_substring assertions. This should work like other repeated assertions, so '*' is replaced by
?. I hope I fixed it in the compiler, and added tests for it. Idea: maybe a byte-code dump should be added for them, to check the generated code.The subject start is not affected by scan_substring, so it is possible to use a lookbehind assertion to check the characters before the start. We should mention this is the documentation. It also revealed that I forgot to add the opcode to
check_lookbehinds(). I am sure there are similar cases elsewhere :(I am sure I need to fix control verb related issues. I will do that in other patches.