Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > On 04/18/2016 08:05 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > >> > >> 'm afraid someone with access to MirBSD will need to debug it. > > > > On second thought there is a simpler fix: stop using btowc. I installed the > > attached patch, which is a good idea anyway. By using only mbrtowc (which we > > need to use anyway), it avoids problems on misconfigured systems like MirOS > > BSD where btowc disagrees with mbrtowc. > > > > After writing and debugging this patch I looked at Gawk and noticed that it > > already has its own equivalent of this patch's new mbrtowc_cache variable. > > Gawk obtains its cache via btowc; although this doesn't work on MirOS BSD > > due to its buggy btowc, Arnold says he's not worried about MirOS BSD any > > more which is quite understandable. Still, it's a bit odd to have two caches > > in Gawk that do the same thing; perhaps we can unify them at some point. > > Oh! Very nice. Thanks yet again, Paul :-)
Thanks Paul. I will merge that change into gawk. I will then look into unifying the two single-byte-to-multibyte caches. This will likely mean interface additions in dfa.h and some minor code changes in dfa.c. I will submit a patch for review here before committing in gawk. Just to clarify, MirBSD is still supported in the "stable" code base (gawk-4.1-stable branch in git), and I'm working on another release from that branch that I hope will happen in the near future. But for the long term, yes, I don't care about MirBSD. It's just too weird. :-( Thanks, Arnold
