[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-11-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15575

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread mckinlay at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2004-10-20 21:38 --- Fix checked in. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-20 21:36 --- Subject: Bug 15575 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-20 21:36:48 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog configure.ac aclocal.m4 con

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread mckinlay at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2004-10-20 18:10 --- Forget what I said, Tom is right. I just tested this again, and javac from JDK 1.5 does indeed use the Locale setting to determine the default encoding. Further more, javac does appear to distinguish between ASCI

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-20 18:03 --- My understanding is that other java compilers do use the locale's default encoding. However, unlike the glibc iconv() converter, typically javac treats ASCII as equivalent to Latin 1. -- http://gcc.gnu

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-20 17:59 --- Subject: Re: HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, mckinlay at redhat dot com wrote: > Do we really want to fix this? > > The "buggy" behaviour actually seems better here because it m

[Bug java/15575] HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined

2004-10-20 Thread mckinlay at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2004-10-20 17:52 --- Do we really want to fix this? The "buggy" behaviour actually seems better here because it more closely matches what other Java compilers do and seems to have resulted in less complaints from users since it "bro