Mercurial > hg > xemacs-beta
changeset 1028:b03923afd851
[xemacs-hg @ 2002-10-03 18:08:18 by stephent]
Ba-a-a-ad Steve <873crnjt30.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
| author | stephent |
|---|---|
| date | Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:08:24 +0000 |
| parents | 089f79dae3ab |
| children | 96794b89bff6 |
| files | src/ChangeLog src/regex.c |
| diffstat | 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/src/ChangeLog Thu Oct 03 14:40:29 2002 +0000 +++ b/src/ChangeLog Thu Oct 03 18:08:24 2002 +0000 @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2002-10-04 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> + + * regex.c (re_match_2_internal): Declare num_nonshy_regs in + enclosing scope. + 2002-09-09 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> * search.c (clear_unused_search_regs): New static function.
--- a/src/regex.c Thu Oct 03 14:40:29 2002 +0000 +++ b/src/regex.c Thu Oct 03 18:08:24 2002 +0000 @@ -4847,93 +4847,94 @@ DEBUG_PRINT1 ("Accepting match.\n"); /* If caller wants register contents data back, do it. */ - if (regs && !bufp->no_sub) - { - int num_nonshy_regs = bufp->re_nsub + 1; - /* Have the register data arrays been allocated? */ - if (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_UNALLOCATED) - { /* No. So allocate them with malloc. We need one - extra element beyond `num_regs' for the `-1' marker - GNU code uses. */ - regs->num_regs = MAX (RE_NREGS, num_nonshy_regs + 1); - regs->start = TALLOC (regs->num_regs, regoff_t); - regs->end = TALLOC (regs->num_regs, regoff_t); - if (regs->start == NULL || regs->end == NULL) - { - FREE_VARIABLES (); - return -2; - } - bufp->regs_allocated = REGS_REALLOCATE; - } - else if (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_REALLOCATE) - { /* Yes. If we need more elements than were already - allocated, reallocate them. If we need fewer, just - leave it alone. */ - if (regs->num_regs < num_nonshy_regs + 1) - { - regs->num_regs = num_nonshy_regs + 1; - RETALLOC (regs->start, regs->num_regs, regoff_t); - RETALLOC (regs->end, regs->num_regs, regoff_t); - if (regs->start == NULL || regs->end == NULL) - { - FREE_VARIABLES (); - return -2; - } - } - } - else - { - /* These braces fend off a "empty body in an else-statement" - warning under GCC when assert expands to nothing. */ - assert (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_FIXED); - } - - /* Convert the pointer data in `regstart' and `regend' to - indices. Register zero has to be set differently, - since we haven't kept track of any info for it. */ - if (regs->num_regs > 0) - { - regs->start[0] = pos; - regs->end[0] = (MATCHING_IN_FIRST_STRING - ? ((regoff_t) (d - string1)) - : ((regoff_t) (d - string2 + size1))); - } - - /* Go through the first `min (num_regs, regs->num_regs)' - registers, since that is all we initialized. */ - for (mcnt = 1; mcnt < MIN (num_nonshy_regs, regs->num_regs); - mcnt++) - { - int internal_reg = bufp->external_to_internal_register[mcnt]; - if (REG_UNSET (regstart[internal_reg]) || - REG_UNSET (regend[internal_reg])) - regs->start[mcnt] = regs->end[mcnt] = -1; - else - { - regs->start[mcnt] = - (regoff_t) POINTER_TO_OFFSET (regstart[internal_reg]); - regs->end[mcnt] = - (regoff_t) POINTER_TO_OFFSET (regend[internal_reg]); - } - } - } /* regs && !bufp->no_sub */ - - /* If we have regs and the regs structure has more elements than - were in the pattern, set the extra elements to -1. If we - (re)allocated the registers, this is the case, because we - always allocate enough to have at least one -1 at the end. - - We do this even when no_sub is set because some applications - (XEmacs) reuse register structures which may contain stale - information, and permit attempts to access those registers. - - It would be possible to require the caller to do this, but we'd - have to change the API for this function to reflect that, and - audit all callers. */ - if (regs && regs->num_regs > 0) - for (mcnt = num_nonshy_regs; mcnt < regs->num_regs; mcnt++) - regs->start[mcnt] = regs->end[mcnt] = -1; - + { + int num_nonshy_regs = bufp->re_nsub + 1; + if (regs && !bufp->no_sub) + { + /* Have the register data arrays been allocated? */ + if (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_UNALLOCATED) + { /* No. So allocate them with malloc. We need one + extra element beyond `num_regs' for the `-1' marker + GNU code uses. */ + regs->num_regs = MAX (RE_NREGS, num_nonshy_regs + 1); + regs->start = TALLOC (regs->num_regs, regoff_t); + regs->end = TALLOC (regs->num_regs, regoff_t); + if (regs->start == NULL || regs->end == NULL) + { + FREE_VARIABLES (); + return -2; + } + bufp->regs_allocated = REGS_REALLOCATE; + } + else if (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_REALLOCATE) + { /* Yes. If we need more elements than were already + allocated, reallocate them. If we need fewer, just + leave it alone. */ + if (regs->num_regs < num_nonshy_regs + 1) + { + regs->num_regs = num_nonshy_regs + 1; + RETALLOC (regs->start, regs->num_regs, regoff_t); + RETALLOC (regs->end, regs->num_regs, regoff_t); + if (regs->start == NULL || regs->end == NULL) + { + FREE_VARIABLES (); + return -2; + } + } + } + else + { + /* The braces fend off a "empty body in an else-statement" + warning under GCC when assert expands to nothing. */ + assert (bufp->regs_allocated == REGS_FIXED); + } + + /* Convert the pointer data in `regstart' and `regend' to + indices. Register zero has to be set differently, + since we haven't kept track of any info for it. */ + if (regs->num_regs > 0) + { + regs->start[0] = pos; + regs->end[0] = (MATCHING_IN_FIRST_STRING + ? ((regoff_t) (d - string1)) + : ((regoff_t) (d - string2 + size1))); + } + + /* Go through the first `min (num_regs, regs->num_regs)' + registers, since that is all we initialized. */ + for (mcnt = 1; mcnt < MIN (num_nonshy_regs, regs->num_regs); + mcnt++) + { + int internal_reg = bufp->external_to_internal_register[mcnt]; + if (REG_UNSET (regstart[internal_reg]) || + REG_UNSET (regend[internal_reg])) + regs->start[mcnt] = regs->end[mcnt] = -1; + else + { + regs->start[mcnt] = + (regoff_t) POINTER_TO_OFFSET (regstart[internal_reg]); + regs->end[mcnt] = + (regoff_t) POINTER_TO_OFFSET (regend[internal_reg]); + } + } + } /* regs && !bufp->no_sub */ + + /* If we have regs and the regs structure has more elements than + were in the pattern, set the extra elements to -1. If we + (re)allocated the registers, this is the case, because we + always allocate enough to have at least one -1 at the end. + + We do this even when no_sub is set because some applications + (XEmacs) reuse register structures which may contain stale + information, and permit attempts to access those registers. + + It would be possible to require the caller to do this, but we'd + have to change the API for this function to reflect that, and + audit all callers. */ + if (regs && regs->num_regs > 0) + for (mcnt = num_nonshy_regs; mcnt < regs->num_regs; mcnt++) + regs->start[mcnt] = regs->end[mcnt] = -1; + } DEBUG_PRINT4 ("%u failure points pushed, %u popped (%u remain).\n", nfailure_points_pushed, nfailure_points_popped, nfailure_points_pushed - nfailure_points_popped);