This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Your INTERMEDIATE_ENCODING patch for Solaris
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Pierre Muller" <pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr>
- Cc: <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:30:31 -0600
- Subject: Re: Your INTERMEDIATE_ENCODING patch for Solaris
- References: <20100731162500.32FAE5664F4@henry1.codesourcery.com> <m37hk4x5r0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3eidxi069.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100817184407.GC3599@adacore.com> <m3aaolgj0g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100818101406.GA2903@adacore.com> <15264.6257346079$1282142643@news.gmane.org> <m38w43dho9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <004b01cb3faf$b07ed580$117c8080$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <m34oeq8u1g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m339twkmj5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <001b01cb48ee$6b8425f0$428c71d0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <m3k4n6hgqe.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <44796.6229789474$1283326243@news.gmane.org> <m362yp9kaj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <000301cb4aa0$7c44fd70$74cef850$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <m362yo88fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3hbhs59iu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <002301cb54bc$661506f0$323f14d0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <m3aaniwykg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <001f01cb5574$78252a60$686f7f20$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Muller <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> writes:
Tom> Great. Here is what I am checking in.
Pierre> Nice, but I was wondering if the
Pierre> check of libiconv version is still needed.
Pierre> Wasn't it suggested by me?
According to the comment, versions of libiconv before 0x10D do not
support "wchar_t" as an argument to iconv_open.
I think you discovered this, but it is hard to remember.
Pierre> I think that checking for the existence of
Pierre> _LIBICONV_VERSION macro should be enough,
Pierre> unless you are really sure that older versions
Pierre> do not work.
Pierre> On systems that have an older GNU libiconv
Pierre> version installed, this might disable the use of GNU libiconv
Pierre> without a good reason.
I think it is better to fail safe:
If this code is disabled, the user gets reduced functionality.
If this code is erroneously enabled, users can't print strings at all.
Tom