Re: [PATCH RFC] Character set support

Kevin Buettner
2002-09-13T19:11:52Z

On Sep 13, 2:42pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 12:02:29PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >
> >> > I'm not suggesting reading wchar_t's from the target; that's not
> >> > terribly useful a thing to do. You _want_ the host wchar_t. It is
> >> > a host type capable of holding a wide character; the type changes
> >> > based on platform and on whether or not the platform actually has
> >> > wide character support.
> >
> >> If you're suggesting using the host's wchar_t to hold characters after
> >> conversion from the target charset to the host charset, then I'm with
> >> you.
> >>
> >> If you're suggesting using the host's wchar_t to hold character values
> >> that have been read from the target, but not yet converted to the
> >> host's charset, then I really disagree. The target's wchar_t could be
> >> 32 bits, while the host's might be 16 bits.
> >
> > Precisely. I was suggesting using host wchar_t after conversion to
> > host format.
>
> Sounds like we need a WCHAREST :-)

Yes, or something equivalent.

What I'd like to determine is whether Daniel thinks that the notion of
a wchar_t *must* be added to Jim's work before the patch can go in.
(IMO, the wchar_t changes should be done as an incremental improvement.)

Kevin