On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 14:09, Dimitrij Mijoski via Libstdc++ <
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> This patch fixes the handling of surrogate code points in all standard
> facets for transcoding Unicode that are based on std::codecvt. Surrogate
> code points should always be treated as error. On the other hand
> surrogate code units can only appear in UTF-16 and only when they come
> in a proper pair.
>
> Additionally, it fixes a bug in std::codecvt_utf16::in() when odd number
> of bytes were given in the range [from, from_end), error was returned
> always. The last byte in such range does not form a full UTF-16 code
> unit and we can not make any decisions for error, instead partial should
> be returned.
>
> The testsuite for testing these facets was updated in the following
> order:
>
> 1. All functions that test codecvts that work with UTF-8 were refactored
>    and made more generic so they accept codecvt that works with the char
>    type char8_t.
> 2. The same functions were updated with new test cases for transcoding
>    errors and now additionally test for surrogates, overlong UTF-8
>    sequences, code points out of the Unicode range, and more tests for
>    missing leading and trailing code units.
> 3. New tests were added to test codecvt_utf16 in both of its variants,
>    UTF-16 <-> UTF-32/UCS-4 and UTF-16 <-> UCS-2.
>

Thanks, the patch looks OK to my uninformed eye, but I'm seeing a new
regression:

/home/jwakely/src/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/22_locale/codecvt/codecvt_utf16/79980.cc:86:
void test06(): Assertion 'result == u"from_bytes failed"' failed.
FAIL: 22_locale/codecvt/codecvt_utf16/79980.cc execution test


Also, I see that libc++ fails some of your new tests the same way as
current libstdc++ does:

unicode:
/home/jwakely/src/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/22_locale/codecvt/codecvt_unicode.h:298:
void utf8_to_utf32_in_error(const std::codecvt<InternT, ExternT, mbstate_t>
&) [InternT = char32_t, ExternT = char]: Assertion `res == cvt.error'
failed.
Aborted (core dumped)

Does that mean they have the same problem? Or is the test wrong? Or is your
patch implementing something that contradicts the requirements of the
standard? I think it's that libc++ has the same handling of surrogates, but
I'd like to be sure that's right.