Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 15:52:02 -0500
From: Will Dietz <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] iconv: fix to=utf32 to behave like utf32be
 (not... ascii?)

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
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:).


>> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.