Do the new regexes conflict with the old ones or can both work "side by side" ?
Can you share the new regexes, so they can probably make it into our sources ?
They can live side by side, but this was just a quick and dirty "hack" for me. I think it might be better to merge the expressions. Let's look into an example for an error message (as output at the command line!):
Wasm: dio.asm(251): Error! E516: Invalid qualified type
JWasm: dio.asm(678) : Error A2071: Invalid operand size for instruction
So, basically, JWasm seems to add an additional space char before the colon, and it does not use the exclamation mark. I made three new entries with regexes which have been changed accordingly, i.e. your original / Wasm was
([][{}() \t#%$~[:alnum:]&_:+/\.-]+)\(([0-9]+)\): Error! (.+)and it became (JWasm)
([][{}() \t#%$~[:alnum:]&_:+/\.-]+)\(([0-9]+)\) : Error (.+)A few remarks, though:
1) I think it would be more elegant to merge the expressions.
- You could make the exclamation mark optional:
Error!?
instead of
Error!
- You could allow (an arbitrary number of) spaces before the colon:
)\ *:
instead of
):
2) Please note that this has to be tested. I am not absolutely sure how many spaces JWasm inserts before the colon and if it does insert spaces in absolutely every case. It *seems* to be sure that it doesn't use the exclamation mark, but please don't kill me if I am wrong here.
3) Until now, I had only the chance to test error messages, not warning messages or notes. I would be willing to try to make JWasm throw warnings (my code doesn't produce any yet), but I doubt that it's possible to get notes from JWasm (at least, I did not run into one yet).
But if you could merge the regexes as shown above, I think 2) and 3) should be solved by design.
Please let me know what you are thinking about it and if you need further assistance. I am glad to be able to give a little bit help for such a great project.
Regards,
Binarus
