Sheri wrote:
> Bob Rossi wrote:
>
>>> As planned, I used those added commands to get a pcre.dll like the old
>>> one (plus coff).
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Sheri,
>>
>> I just made a small patch to pcre that provides the dll without the
>> version number. It however, does not change the contents of the dll.
>> That is, the pcre.dll still doesn't contain the pcreposix functions.
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to give this functionality on windows and
>> not on unix. So, should we provide a mode that combines the pcre and
>> pcreposix stuff into one dll or so, named pcre.dll or pcre.so?
>>
>> The other option Philip, is to just say, from now on, the pcre.dll won't
>> contain the pcreposix functions.
>>
>> Any opinions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob Rossi
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I would of course be very happy to have an option that would include
> posix and make pcre.dll automatically. Just giving libpcre-0.dll the
> name of pcre.dll without making it interchangeable with older versions
> of pcre.dll (which included posix) might be confusing, but if it also
> makes pcreposix.dll (and pcreposix.dll looks for pcre.dll) that would
> work (at least for us). Our app is now able to function with
> libpcre-0.dll and libpcreposix-0.dll, but if we distributed those files,
> users would have to manually remove the old pcre.dll and/or
> pcreposix.dll for the new versions to get used.
>
> Our order for file searching is shown here:
>
> http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/pcre-dev/2007-April/msg00055.html
>
> Also, I continue to marvel that our combined pcre.dll (incl posix and
> pcre and coff) is smaller than your libpcre-0.dll (pcre only)
>
> Regards,
> Sheri
>
>
>
BTW, would it be possible to include some options for allocating some
fixed stack space when configuring under windows (if not disabling stack
recursion)? I think it involves setting some flags? Or automatically
doing so with 8 mb (so all the pcretests work?)
Regards,
Sheri
