<regex>: Simplify unwinding
#5961
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
StephanTLavavej
added
enhancement
StephanTLavavej
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2026
Member
|
I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Following #5828 and #5835, general stack unwinding is skipped when a regex (or an asserted pattern) matches successfully and matching does not follow the leftmost-longest rule. As a consequence, conditions based on
_Failedor_Longestin the general unwinding loop have become superfluous, since they are always true. (For some opcodes, only_Failedwas tested, but this was because they could not be generated in leftmost-longest mode.)This removes all of these unnecessary conditions, replacing them by an initial assert to check that
_Failed || _Longestis always true. Subsequently, we can use the same handler for_After_assertand_Do_nothingbecause no work is performed when backtracking over them. Similarly, the handler for_Disjunction_eval_alt_on_failurewould immediately fall through to the handler of_Disjunction_eval_alt_always, so we can just fuse these two opcodes.