Re: There is no tests for musl,

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0800, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo)  wrote:
> Thanks for the detail explain, I know all the shortcut of 16bit
> wchar_t, considerate that 4bit wchar_t is rarely used in unix world,
> but 16bit wchar_t is frequently in
> Windows/Qt/Java/Javascript, so I think it's better not change the
> 16bit wchar_t to 32 bit, and that's would confusing those people
> already use 16bit wchar_t on Windows platform, and this would affect
> Unix- world, by default, on win32, wchar_t is 16 bit, this is a de
> facto.

That's a choice you can make in the system you're developing, but you
should be aware that it makes it impossible to support full Unicode
with the standard APIs and thus requires apps to either limit
themselves to supporting only the BMP or using nonstandard APIs.

> >From this point of view,  getting wchar_t to be 32bit on win32 is
> useless and cause more problems.
> The main point to port musl on win32 is add posix support and utf8
> support on win32.
> The wchar_t is useless for those people need cross-platform text
> processing, and should using char32_t instead. That's a design
> principle.

Again, char32_t can't support full Unicode if wchar_t is only 16-bit.
It's stuck supporting just the BMP and the upper 16 bits are always
zeros. Any attempt to make char32_t support the full range would
produce inconsistent and nonconforming results. :(

Rich