3 ms·

re2c is probably just as fast in practice, i'd imagine. Also note that rejit has already been used as a name for this purpose :) https://github.com/coreperf/re

• haberman 11y ago
  > re2c is probably just as fast in practice, i'd imagine. Probably, but re2c requires every pattern to be run through a C compiler. Not useful if you want to use it as the embedded regex engine inside a language interpreter. Also recent iterations of Intel processors contain specialized string-scanning instructions -- I would love to see engines that can take advantage of these. It would be hard for C compilers to recognize these patterns, I think, without explicit use of intrinsics: http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/07/gazelle-is-going-to-love-sse-42.html http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/07/gazelle-is-going-to-love...
  • sitkack 11y ago
    libtcc, http://bellard.org/tcc/ http://bellard.org/tcc/
• pcwalton 11y ago
  > re2c is probably just as fast in practice, i'd imagine. Actually, no, not if you count compilation time (which you should, in a dynamic language setting).
  • sitkack 11y ago
    I'll have to add it to my backlog of benchmarks to do, but tcc could compile C source @ ~30MB/s on a Pentium 4. http://bellard.org/tcc/#speed http://bellard.org/tcc/#speed