From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id AE2703857BAB; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:59:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AE2703857BAB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710341957;
	bh=wgVOymzgmC0Xp6iyDNtmmFzuzU1ycedT0XsppDm2kR0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ilVtwRApCgEGMyOT54ZLN7kXGMFQ5Wmu4BzPnik7nz51UfDvZWE0TxKmCiTJpOr42
	 76nCs8f96barLvlC6jqo8tNxJEh1tpQvOhnBDdEQmDC6P/fS1DK9eVR/Xf6FNlOsrn
	 ny3ef2pAichDtjHmmJxQUUd3ZOBQDaIERGKF4QmQ=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/112652] g++.dg/cpp26/literals2.C FAILs
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:59:16 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112652-4-9mn65epilD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112652-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112652-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112652

--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #6)
>> > --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec =
dot
>> > Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> >> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> >> Given that C++ says e.g. in https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.ccon#3.1
>> >> that program is ill-formed if some character lacks encoding in the ex=
ecution
>> >> character set, I'm afraid the Solaris iconv behavior results in viola=
tion of
>>=20
>> Although I can barely wrap my head around the standardese there, I had a
>> look at n4928 (the last? C++23 draft), which has a different wording
>> here (p.25, 5.13.3):
>
> The testcase is for a C++26 feature, which made those ill-formed.

Should have been obvious from the pathname ;-(  N4971 has that wording...

>> The current Solaris iconv behaviour certainly isn't particularly
>> intuitive and I'll ask the Solaris engineers about it.  However, there's
>> the question what to do about the testcase?  Just xfail it on Solaris or
>> omit just the two affected subtests there?
>
> xfailing is one possibility, but then on Solaris we'll never support C++26
> properly.

I guess it's the best solution in the short term (GCC 14), though.

> Or require using GNU libiconv rather than Solaris iconv if it can't deal =
with
> that?

At least document the suggestion in install.texi; I wouldn't make it a
hard requirement yet.  I'll also wait what the Solaris engineers can
provide on background for the current behaviour.

FWIW, the iconv conversion tables in /usr/lib/iconv can be regenerated
from the OpenSolaris sources, modified not to do that '?' conversion.
Worked for a quick check for the UTF-8 -> ASCII example, but the '?' is
more prevalent and would need to be eradicated upstream.=