On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:23:43PM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean. For a Latin-1 locale there is no
> > difference, but if the locale is a different legacy locale, the
> > wchar_t value (Unicode scalar value on systems with __STDC_ISO_10646__
> > def
Rich Felker wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean. For a Latin-1 locale there is no
> difference, but if the locale is a different legacy locale, the
> wchar_t value (Unicode scalar value on systems with __STDC_ISO_10646__
> defined) needs to be returned. If you're doubtful about the intent of
> the
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:10:29AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> > $ printf %d\\n \'À
> > -61
> > (expected 192)
> >
> > This should be 192 regardless of locale on any system where wchar_t
> > values are ISO-10646/Unicode. Bash is incorrectly reading the first
> > byte of the UTF
Rich Felker wrote:
> $ printf %d\\n \'À
> -61
> (expected 192)
>
> This should be 192 regardless of locale on any system where wchar_t
> values are ISO-10646/Unicode. Bash is incorrectly reading the first
> byte of the UTF-8 which happens to be -61 when interpreted as signed
> char; on a Latin-1 b
$ printf %d\\n \'À
-61
(expected 192)
This should be 192 regardless of locale on any system where wchar_t
values are ISO-10646/Unicode. Bash is incorrectly reading the first
byte of the UTF-8 which happens to be -61 when interpreted as signed
char; on a Latin-1 based locale it will probably give -
