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 BC5D03857B86; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:46:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BC5D03857B86
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710337574;
	bh=K/AoCrgowJ59mAbefYR7B6n0gC7wxxktgof7SBNUfcs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CX6lM/yctRdZcS9kQKZ63NKZTDv+dnv7FZUTy0Scm55XmTID94W4W9QztiMK3kIw+
	 4wVCVBsCRfCiDPwPv599/wU5goi5NrcJbIjprYvvqC0w4SWXCG6WVDDFB7qshVqYJj
	 5pnHNFUCkIFFqnAgY9PFk7uMlqpoxS3kvkrDBPV4=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 13:46:14 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
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-lBBSy83K8e@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 #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 d=
ot
> > 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 exe=
cution
> >> character set, I'm afraid the Solaris iconv behavior results in violat=
ion 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.

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