jammy (3) pcre2matching.3.gz

Provided by: libpcre2-dev_10.39-3ubuntu0.1_amd64 bug

NAME

       PCRE2 - Perl-compatible regular expressions (revised API)

PCRE2 MATCHING ALGORITHMS

       This  document describes the two different algorithms that are available in PCRE2 for matching a compiled
       regular expression against a given subject string. The "standard" algorithm is the one  provided  by  the
       pcre2_match()  function.  This  works  in  the  same  as as Perl's matching function, and provide a Perl-
       compatible matching operation. The just-in-time (JIT) optimization that  is  described  in  the  pcre2jit
       documentation is compatible with this function.

       An  alternative  algorithm is provided by the pcre2_dfa_match() function; it operates in a different way,
       and is not Perl-compatible. This alternative has advantages and disadvantages compared with the  standard
       algorithm, and these are described below.

       When  there  is  only  one  possible  way  in  which  a given subject string can match a pattern, the two
       algorithms give the same answer. A difference arises, however, when there are multiple possibilities. For
       example, if the pattern

         ^<.*>

       is matched against the string

         <something> <something else> <something further>

       there  are three possible answers. The standard algorithm finds only one of them, whereas the alternative
       algorithm finds all three.

REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AS TREES

       The set of strings that are matched by a regular expression can be represented as a  tree  structure.  An
       unlimited repetition in the pattern makes the tree of infinite size, but it is still a tree. Matching the
       pattern to a given subject string (from a given starting point) can be thought of  as  a  search  of  the
       tree.   There  are  two ways to search a tree: depth-first and breadth-first, and these correspond to the
       two matching algorithms provided by PCRE2.

THE STANDARD MATCHING ALGORITHM

       In the terminology of Jeffrey Friedl's book "Mastering Regular Expressions", the standard algorithm is an
       "NFA  algorithm".  It  conducts  a  depth-first  search of the pattern tree. That is, it proceeds along a
       single path through the tree, checking that the subject  matches  what  is  required.  When  there  is  a
       mismatch, the algorithm tries any alternatives at the current point, and if they all fail, it backs up to
       the previous branch point in the tree, and tries the next alternative branch at that  level.  This  often
       involves  backing  up  (moving  to the left) in the subject string as well. The order in which repetition
       branches are tried is controlled by the greedy or ungreedy nature of the quantifier.

       If a leaf node is reached, a matching string has been found, and at that point the algorithm stops. Thus,
       if  there  is  more  than one possible match, this algorithm returns the first one that it finds. Whether
       this is the shortest, the longest, or some intermediate length depends on the way  the  alternations  and
       the greedy or ungreedy repetition quantifiers are specified in the pattern.

       Because  it  ends  up  with  a  single  path  through the tree, it is relatively straightforward for this
       algorithm to keep track of the substrings that are matched by portions of  the  pattern  in  parentheses.
       This provides support for capturing parentheses and backreferences.

THE ALTERNATIVE MATCHING ALGORITHM

       This algorithm conducts a breadth-first search of the tree. Starting from the first matching point in the
       subject, it scans the subject string from left to right, once, character by character,  and  as  it  does
       this,  it remembers all the paths through the tree that represent valid matches. In Friedl's terminology,
       this is a kind of "DFA algorithm", though it is not implemented as a traditional finite state machine (it
       keeps multiple states active simultaneously).

       Although  the general principle of this matching algorithm is that it scans the subject string only once,
       without backtracking, there is one exception: when a lookaround assertion is encountered, the  characters
       following or preceding the current point have to be independently inspected.

       The  scan  continues  until  either  the end of the subject is reached, or there are no more unterminated
       paths. At this point, terminated paths represent the different matching possibilities (if there are none,
       the match has failed).  Thus, if there is more than one possible match, this algorithm finds all of them,
       and in particular, it finds the longest. The matches are returned in  the  output  vector  in  decreasing
       order of length. There is an option to stop the algorithm after the first match (which is necessarily the
       shortest) is found.

       Note that the size of vector needed to contain all the results depends  on  the  number  of  simultaneous
       matches, not on the number of parentheses in the pattern. Using pcre2_match_data_create_from_pattern() to
       create the match data block is therefore not advisable when doing DFA matching.

       Note also that all the matches that are found start at the same point in the subject. If the pattern

         cat(er(pillar)?)?

       is matched against the string "the caterpillar catchment", the result is the three strings "caterpillar",
       "cater", and "cat" that start at the fifth character of the subject. The algorithm does not automatically
       move on to find matches that start at later positions.

       PCRE2's "auto-possessification" optimization usually applies to character repeats at the end of a pattern
       (as  well as internally). For example, the pattern "a\d+" is compiled as if it were "a\d++" because there
       is no point even considering the possibility of backtracking into the repeated digits. For DFA  matching,
       this  means  that only one possible match is found. If you really do want multiple matches in such cases,
       either use an ungreedy repeat ("a\d+?") or set the PCRE2_NO_AUTO_POSSESS option when compiling.

       There are a number of features of PCRE2 regular expressions that are not supported or behave  differently
       in the alternative matching function. Those that are not supported cause an error if encountered.

       1.  Because  the  algorithm  finds  all  possible  matches,  the  greedy or ungreedy nature of repetition
       quantifiers is not relevant (though it may  affect  auto-possessification,  as  just  described).  During
       matching,  greedy  and  ungreedy  quantifiers  are  treated  in exactly the same way. However, possessive
       quantifiers can make a difference when what follows could also match what is quantified, for example in a
       pattern like this:

         ^a++\w!

       This  pattern  matches  "aaab!"  but  not  "aaa!", which would be matched by a non-possessive quantifier.
       Similarly, if an atomic group is present, it is matched as if it were a standalone pattern at the current
       point, and the longest match is then "locked in" for the rest of the overall pattern.

       2.  When  dealing  with multiple paths through the tree simultaneously, it is not straightforward to keep
       track of captured substrings for the different matching possibilities, and PCRE2's implementation of this
       algorithm does not attempt to do this. This means that no captured substrings are available.

       3. Because no substrings are captured, backreferences within the pattern are not supported.

       4.  For  the same reason, conditional expressions that use a backreference as the condition or test for a
       specific group recursion are not supported.

       5. Again for the same reason, script runs are not supported.

       6. Because many paths through the tree may be active, the \K escape sequence, which resets the  start  of
       the match when encountered (but may be on some paths and not on others), is not supported.

       7.  Callouts  are  supported,  but  the  value of the capture_top field is always 1, and the value of the
       capture_last field is always 0.

       8. The \C escape sequence, which (in the standard algorithm) always matches a single code unit, even in a
       UTF  mode,  is  not supported in these modes, because the alternative algorithm moves through the subject
       string one character (not code unit) at a time, for all active paths through the tree.

       9. Except for (*FAIL), the backtracking control verbs such as (*PRUNE)  are  not  supported.  (*FAIL)  is
       supported, and behaves like a failing negative assertion.

       10. The PCRE2_MATCH_INVALID_UTF option for pcre2_compile() is not supported by pcre2_dfa_match().

ADVANTAGES OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALGORITHM

       The  main  advantage  of the alternative algorithm is that all possible matches (at a single point in the
       subject) are automatically found, and in particular, the longest match is found. To find  more  than  one
       match at the same point using the standard algorithm, you have to do kludgy things with callouts.

       Partial  matching  is  possible  with  this  algorithm,  though it has some limitations. The pcre2partial
       documentation gives details of partial matching and discusses multi-segment matching.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALGORITHM

       The alternative algorithm suffers from a number of disadvantages:

       1. It is substantially slower than the standard algorithm. This is partly because it has  to  search  for
       all possible matches, but is also because it is less susceptible to optimization.

       2.  Capturing  parentheses,  backreferences,  script runs, and matching within invalid UTF string are not
       supported.

       3. Although atomic groups are supported, their use does not provide the  performance  advantage  that  it
       does for the standard algorithm.

       4. JIT optimization is not supported.

AUTHOR

       Philip Hazel
       Retired from University Computing Service
       Cambridge, England.

REVISION

       Last updated: 28 August 2021
       Copyright (c) 1997-2021 University of Cambridge.