On 17-03-2020 16:00, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2020-03-17 10:53 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Well, here's how I reasoned.
>>
>> Say for a string "abcdefgh" we test "a", "ab", "abc", etc.
>>
>> If we timeout at "a", there is the change that it's f.i. specific to
>> one-letter matches, and such timeouts will not occur of "ab" and so on.
>>
>> So, we try to establish a pattern: if "a", "ab" and "abc" timeout, then
>> we think there's a good chance that "abcd" will also timeout, and we
>> give up.
>>
>> Having said that, my reasoning above is more concerned with not testing
>> too little. Your reasoning is more concerned with having less timeouts.
>> So I think both approaches are valid, they're just different trade-off
>> points.
>>
>> I'm fine with submitting a follow up patch that gives up after the first
>> timeout, if you prefer that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>>
> 
> Ok, that's fine with me.

Here is that follow-up patch.

OK for trunk?

Thanks,
- Tom