| /third_party/rust/crates/aho-corasick/src/ |
| D | ahocorasick.rs | 7 use crate::nfa::{self, NFA};
1014 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.heap_bytes(), in heap_bytes()
1025 NFA(NFA<S>), enumerator
1033 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.match_kind(), in match_kind()
1041 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.start_state(), in start_state()
1051 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.max_pattern_len(), in max_pattern_len()
1061 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.pattern_count(), in pattern_count()
1070 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.prefilter(), in prefilter()
1094 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => nfa.overlapping_find_at( in overlapping_find_at()
1120 Imp::NFA(ref nfa) => { in earliest_find_at()
[all …]
|
| D | nfa.rs | 47 pub struct NFA<S> { struct
90 impl<S: StateID> NFA<S> { implementation
217 impl<S: StateID> Automaton for NFA<S> { implementation
490 nfa: &'a mut NFA<S>,
496 fn new(nfa: &'a mut NFA<S>, state_id: S) -> IterTransitionsMut<'a, S> { in new()
500 fn nfa(&mut self) -> &mut NFA<S> { in nfa()
563 pub fn build<I, P, S: StateID>(&self, patterns: I) -> Result<NFA<S>> in build()
604 nfa: NFA<S>,
614 nfa: NFA { in new()
629 fn compile<I, P>(mut self, patterns: I) -> Result<NFA<S>> in compile()
[all …]
|
| D | dfa.rs | 7 use crate::nfa::{PatternID, PatternLength, NFA};
623 pub fn build<S: StateID>(&self, nfa: &NFA<S>) -> Result<DFA<S>> { in build()
697 nfa: &NFA<S>, in nfa_next_state_memoized()
|
| /third_party/skia/src/sksl/lex/ |
| D | RegexNode.h | 14 struct NFA;
64 std::vector<int> createStates(NFA* nfa, const std::vector<int>& accept) const;
|
| D | NFAtoDFA.h | 37 NFAtoDFA(NFA* nfa) in NFAtoDFA()
162 const NFA& fNFA;
|
| D | NFA.h | 18 struct NFA { struct
|
| D | NFA.cpp | 10 int NFA::match(std::string s) const { in match()
|
| D | RegexNode.cpp | 12 std::vector<int> RegexNode::createStates(NFA* nfa, const std::vector<int>& accept) const { in createStates()
|
| D | Main.cpp | 186 NFA nfa; in process()
|
| /third_party/rust/crates/regex/ |
| D | Cargo.toml | 138 # based on the regex. We test both of the NFA implementations by forcing their
150 # Run the test suite on the NFA algorithm over Unicode codepoints.
155 # Run the test suite on the NFA algorithm over bytes that match UTF-8 only.
160 # Run the test suite on the NFA algorithm over arbitrary bytes.
|
| D | PERFORMANCE.md | 158 capture group locations. Both of these are simulations of an NFA, which must
160 somewhat by restricting the amount of text that must be searched via an NFA
216 NFA simulation will need to do.
243 Well, it turns out that the process of converting an NFA to a DFA can lead to
258 one of the NFA simulations.
|
| D | HACKING.md | 140 need to compile two programs; one for NFA execution and one for the lazy DFA.
240 * `tests/test_nfa.rs` - tests `Regex::new`, forced to use the NFA
242 * `tests/test_nfa_bytes.rs` - tests `Regex::new`, forced to use the NFA
244 * `tests/test_nfa_utf8bytes.rs` - tests `Regex::new`, forced to use the NFA
|
| D | CHANGELOG.md | 1034 Implements NFA state compression in the lazy DFA.
1043 Add upper limit (from the DFA) to capture search (for the NFA).
|
| /third_party/skia/src/sksl/ |
| D | BUILD.bazel | 186 "lex/NFA.cpp",
187 "lex/NFA.h",
|
| /third_party/rust/crates/aho-corasick/ |
| D | DESIGN.md | 16 * Aho-Corasick as an NFA, using dense transitions near the root with sparse
18 * Aho-Corasick as a DFA. (An NFA is slower to search, but cheaper to construct
216 automata (NFA) and deterministic finite automata (DFA). The difference between
217 them is, principally, that an NFA can be in multiple states at once. This is
226 section is an NFA. This is because failure transitions are, effectively,
261 The search logic here is much simpler than for the NFA, and this tends to
266 this DFA can be much more costly than building the NFA, and use much more
269 Users of this crate can actually choose between using an NFA or a DFA. By
270 default, an NFA is used, because it typically strikes the best balance between
|
| /third_party/mesa3d/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/ |
| D | sb_bc_fmt_def.inc | 422 BC_FIELD(VTX_WORD1_GPR, NUM_FORMAT_ALL, NFA, 29, 28)
436 BC_FIELD(VTX_WORD1_SEM, NUM_FORMAT_ALL, NFA, 29, 28)
598 BC_FIELD(MEM_RD_WORD1, NUM_FORMAT_ALL, NFA, 29, 28)
|
| /third_party/pcre2/pcre2/ |
| D | HACKING | 44 matches individual wild portions of the pattern. This is an "NFA algorithm" in
320 it implements an NFA algorithm, similar to the original Henry Spencer algorithm
|
| /third_party/skia/ |
| D | BUILD.gn | 837 "src/sksl/lex/NFA.cpp",
838 "src/sksl/lex/NFA.h",
|
| /third_party/icu/docs/userguide/strings/ |
| D | regexp.md | 381 (NFA) style matching engine. This section gives some suggestion on how to avoid
|
| /third_party/protobuf/ |
| D | CHANGES.txt | 2266 rather than building an NFA). Worked around by making use of possessive
|
| /third_party/pcre2/pcre2/doc/ |
| D | pcre2.txt | 5666 sions", the standard algorithm is an "NFA algorithm". It conducts a
|