Yes, there should be "<=".
I just tested return values of UCRT's wctob in "C" locale for input in range
[128,255] and it seems to do the same thing as btowc.
For other locales it does best-fit conversion (when it can't convert
losslessly), this why I come up with using 20127, so we would perform best-fit
conversion in "C" locale. I was wrong.
We could you either 28591 or range check just like in btowc. Which one would
you prefer?
- Kirill Makurin
________________________________
From: LIU Hao
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 12:39 AM
To: Kirill Makurin; mingw-w64-public
Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Inconsistent behavior of btowc with "C" locale
在 2025-6-6 20:31, Kirill Makurin 写道:
> diff --git a/mingw-w64-crt/misc/btowc.c b/mingw-w64-crt/misc/btowc.c
> index c8fbd8e74..e203bbc44 100644
> --- a/mingw-w64-crt/misc/btowc.c
> +++ b/mingw-w64-crt/misc/btowc.c
> @@ -15,14 +15,18 @@ wint_t btowc (int c)
> ... ...
> + unsigned cp = ___lc_codepage_func();
> +
> + /* "C" locale */
> + if (cp == 0)
> + return (unsigned) c < 0xFF ? c : WEOF;
I think you meant `(unsigned) c <= 0xFF` here?
> diff --git a/mingw-w64-crt/misc/wctob.c b/mingw-w64-crt/misc/wctob.c
> index 995f6db6e..eddf9d20b 100644
> --- a/mingw-w64-crt/misc/wctob.c
> +++ b/mingw-w64-crt/misc/wctob.c
> @@ -14,16 +14,22 @@
> ... ...
> + /* "C" locale, use code page 20127 (ASCII) for conversion */
> + if (cp == 0)
> + cp = 20127;
> +
20127 produces 7-bit results which is not the inverse of `btowc()`. How about
28591?
28591 iso-8859-1 ISO 8859-1 Latin 1; Western European (ISO)
--
Best regards,
LIU Hao
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
