Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | The log says "_Invoke_ _iconv_ with explicit BE suffix" that's quite > | different. > > but why.... I would have assumed that using LE resp. BE and drop all > later byteswapping would have been the way to go...
I did not want to change too much. I can put out the byte swapping and call iconv with the correct byte order, but only if we decide that we are not dropping iconv in favor of something else, and if I am going to do that I will at the same time optimize some of the copying away. Anything else does not make sense IMHO. So are we going to drop iconv for the unciode conversions or not? Georg
