On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > > It seems correcting the table is the correct way to go, by direct > > observation, and placing great faith that other than 0x15/0x37, > > the discrepancies between ASCII <> EBCDIC C0 mappings do > > not vary widely between EBCDIC mapping choices. > > Maybe to be sure we could compare the current 'ucharmap' with some > result of apr_xlate_conv_byte() for each byte? > Perhaps a VALIDATE_TABLE define for the builder, especially when --with-maintainer-mode is given? Without some specific define, invoking actual apr functions, again, violates the ability to cross-compile.
