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 04B703858C50; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:09:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04B703858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700665795;
	bh=l/dEa5f4KnehWiWLBObAHXhXyX3xJ/5gVcNJgseQSZo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BVFeZMOvppSNXDW8mSL+9KDmUjxpp1UQkHpwCBUMzwSQmWxxJydwgPUe5wnKr8eKA
	 wd3zE9OPtadbe2HQjj6K7JJ+YFScd+gIu67tWzINLDOh3rUetFsTEXp/DzG+LHoo0H
	 b/z5OrLYwHiZy2qHuDZunzaPGK9tUWspkXkOmoSc=
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, 22 Nov 2023 15:09:54 +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-p2dXcimXfy@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 #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Strange.  On cfarm211 which is
> SunOS gcc-solaris11 5.11 11.3 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
> the test passes.

Can you check which libiconv got picked up there?  The non-standard
OpenCSW packages on that system may include GNU libiconv and install
into default system directories, so they are picked up by default.

> You get no diagnostics for those lines at all?  Buggy libconv?

No.  There's no separate libiconv on Solaris; the iconv* functions are
included in libc.

> I mean the emojis certainly aren't in ISO-8859-1...

Probably not ;-)

FWIW, I've just built trunk with GNU libiconv 1.17 on
i386-pc-solaris2.11.  The test PASSes now with both LANG=3DC and
LANG=3Den_US.UTF-8.

I'll dig further into Solaris iconv functions here...=