Regexp library benchmarks...

Since I don't have an account to reply there, I'll do it here.

Recently somebody benchmarked regexp libraries as potential candidates for use in CMake.
Short version: PCRE was not exactly much faster than what is in CMake, re2 and TRE were magnitudes faster: [cmake-developers] Re: slow regex implementation in RegularExpression.
This is the home of TRE:



The problem with re2 and TRE is features. Lack of.

The reason to have a new regexp implementation in Qt is having more features (and fix some of the broken ones). Both re2 and (especially TRE) are missing some features from the current QRegExp and definitely do not provide some of the desired new features.

Either someone continues development on TRE and keeps it superperformant, or neither re2 nor TRE have any future as a replacement for QRegExp.

By Pau Garcia i Quiles at Fri, 12/02/2011 - 19:52