From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12811 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Will Dietz Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] iconv: fix to=utf32 to behave like utf32be (not... ascii?) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 15:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20180507192534.GK1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1525726212 16848 195.159.176.226 (7 May 2018 20:50:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 20:50:12 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12827-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon May 07 22:50:08 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fFn5D-0004GE-6T for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 22:50:07 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5417 invoked by uid 550); 7 May 2018 20:52:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 5393 invoked from network); 7 May 2018 20:52:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wdtz.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xiNcCnVhyP5FhLQd+vzu12MtTjLRZa2oi9CNUq+nNDA=; b=HP0H451aBRnmjmOUX2Eo7pqf7oGr3gr7Z7BGPStLx0vibVrk2HjOMeRMi2NWlH/S2K 6YbuPj7PMYXm2XqgFfJwarKyMXIT+vlS+THyruH1cMwL2Rk94zTsPyq4iMOCNjufvvfy K5p9/Fsc4OwOE7aeUD3uVfN1cQErVMs3W7fi0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xiNcCnVhyP5FhLQd+vzu12MtTjLRZa2oi9CNUq+nNDA=; b=qMtv5YLyqnceLVvLB8XZ85lLrtv0ikB7ZDMFgaXov9B9FLL9eTpdSP9zqOqN9FFo9J DZ2Yav0Z9t/08IisfapW4H8lL7TVZNQbD1XrCryeDM8e/PlHcJlg2pg5vRHtEbV4YNNC hHCwo1OkAB7YZDpdaR4duqqhKdQnYnYZg8bz2PcPA4WCTKKHMyWyW/VNrZzs7lDKAvek 1et8uhFiSuikmvz0upgwczbzjSGcikF5TqQ8xv4vr2URcBsubrOrktjGDeRcO4pV1VGX y+2iYp4R3sxvfp3J28L5Q/rSqpAN/85svgS3oZEXJVfxhuh78mkqUM0u8/1/USJpggoz 9hCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweqsASP67NVpwPL8SnoGdt0IK+FjMfCHr3o7aznEjAZLeF+wakA 1F7LsAKEHd1emwo42pFZK8vsZhA5HMqOoUuanEI1iB0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZquqSZB6UIgPTtHCGkax7xW5LPfKjoJN2BVnKyYLIfZuVGNoMjJgeSgoocazbr046P2H7fsyJfWBriEskPYsRA= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:c61:: with SMTP id 88-v6mr674288otr.173.1525726322874; Mon, 07 May 2018 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [130.126.255.172] In-Reply-To: <20180507192534.GK1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12811 Archived-At: On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:06:57PM -0500, Will Dietz wrote: >> Hmm this is more complicated than I originally thought. >> I'm not sure I understand the current behavior, >> but am less convinced this is a clear improvement. > > Can you explain what you're confused about? It seems ok. > Nothing specific, and depending in the perspective this change is relatively straightforward. If it seems that way to you and doesn't raise any alarm bells then it's probably perfectly fine :). Mostly I couldn't shake the sense I'd gone down this path before and someone explained there was a reason to do things this way; this feeling was an itch I couldn't scratch and so I wanted to conservatively pass along my doubts until I could convince myself there were unfounded : ). If it doesn't ring any bells with you then I probably am remembering incorrectly or from a different project, or a combination of both of these :). The fragment I couldn't shake was that this would break or significantly bloat re:some uses that compulsively converted everything to utf32 and expected some particular behavior with stdio. I want to say it was somehow win32 related but that doesn't make any sense for musl anyway O:). Combined with a bit of BOM iconv SNAFU when testing UTF-32/UTF-32BE/UTF32-LE/etc., I didn't want to misrepresent my confidence in this change :). Especially compared to the other patch, which IMO is both more urgent and "obviously" an improvement. I don't know of a specific reason this change is wrong, however, and in fact AFAICT it is only more correct. Sorry for unspecified doubts, it's more that I couldn't vouch for it 100% O:). ~Will >> Thoughts/comments appreciated :). >> >> ~Will >> >> PS: Did we discuss this years ago? I thought so, but can't find it anywhere... > > I don't think so. UTF-32 did not exist as a different case from > UTF-32BE until this year. Hmm, indeed! Well I don't know what I'm thinking of, then. Thanks for taking a look and pointing this out. > > Rich