Backreferences

Added parsing of integer escapes as backreferences.

[Lasse Reichstein, 2008-10-28 10:09:52]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/210
File src/ast.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/210#newcode1344
Line 1344: };
Now we have back-references with an index, the capture should hold the matching
index, so we can pair captures and back-references.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212
File src/parser.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3244
Line 3244: next_ = in()->GetNext();
the has_next variable is set to true in the push_back case, but not in the
in()->has_more() case. Is it known to be true in the latter case? If so, why
isn't it known to be true in the former?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3367
Line 3367: EmbeddedVector<uc32, kMaxChars> chars_seen;
EmbeddedVector is used instead of array to have range checking in DEBUG mode?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3375
Line 3375: // To avoid reading past the end of thw stack-allocated pushback
"thw" -> "the"

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3487
Line 3487: //   ?
and " //  {"  ?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/213
File test/cctest/test-regexp.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/213#newcode169
Line 169: ExpectParse("[\\00011]", "[\t]");
Both Safari and IE take at most the first three octal digits, so they would
interpret it as [\0 1 1]. Only Mozilla would act as this test expects. Should we
match Safari (or the majority) here?

[Christian Plesner Hansen, 2008-10-28 11:17:45]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212
File src/parser.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3244
Line 3244: next_ = in()->GetNext();
We know it will work because we advance twice after setting up the pushback
buffer.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/212#newcode3367
Line 3367: EmbeddedVector<uc32, kMaxChars> chars_seen;
Bingo

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/213
File test/cctest/test-regexp.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8635/diff/208/213#newcode169
Line 169: ExpectParse("[\\00011]", "[\t]");
I don't really have an opinion.  We could also follow the spec.