On 7 Dec 2011, at 15:32, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: > No .. the idea is to let them work in whatever environment they like (latin-2 > is a perfectly good example), but have the *binary* they produce contain > UTF-8 encoded strings so that the running executable will display the correct > characters.
But that's not what you're testing. Your source file contains some random encoding (latin-1, I believe). The compiler will then interpret this as being whatever the current locale encoding is. You are then specifying that the output is UTF-8. So it is relying on a conversion from latin1-interpreted-as-something-random to UTF-8. There is no possible way in which this can be construed as a good idea. The test fails for me (and, apparently, for quite a few other people) and they get a scary warning. David -- Sent from my PDP-11 _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
