X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Mih7j1Oazz36rVIO
	CUAGC9o/e9vvBbrDqvirKvhr1TR+ZXS9XW6v+n6ky1ePcdh1vpYCp44UDd8iEtPM
	b10Q/OLYpNV8v9kXFm4MbzRceYGTfldrkaa7ZxQ1duQdw4cZ0bHEkjdhmTEW/M/s
	NgwSdQx5nC99iJiHn7td0+Aqfek=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=6ZQUfxPaBxdQgjJqMHkk32
	Z4gnE=; b=piUtXJ/bAP/gXCHo8Vwk3bNzw0l9ikJkqI8WY0dgpaOAn2A44U9en2
	JGdlXmbM/46DXmI+KgJurjhVhAF9ktvnkxTCTki5EFLk0j5CiQAxYOi1eOIy1emv
	lINd9j8fzEUFvlgH98sX3ua+grPXabR2NT4mI6asRn77KcpXQpkQk=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: limerock01.mail.cornell.edu
X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already.
Subject: Re: Bug in collation functions?
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <563148AF DOT 1000502 AT cornell DOT edu> <5631996D DOT 7040908 AT redhat DOT com> <20151029075050 DOT GE5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20151029083057 DOT GH5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <56321815 DOT 7000203 AT cornell DOT edu> <20151029153516 DOT GJ5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <56323F2E DOT 4030807 AT cornell DOT edu> <56324598 DOT 9060604 AT cornell DOT edu> <56324E82 DOT 7000402 AT redhat DOT com> <563268A4 DOT 6000005 AT cornell DOT edu>
From: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
Message-ID: <56329462.2090206@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:49:22 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <563268A4.6000005@cornell.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 10/29/2015 2:42 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 12:51 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 10/29/2015 10:13 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Never mind.  My test case was flawed, because it didn't check for the
>>> possibility that wcscoll might return 0.  Here's a revised definition of
>>> the "compare" function:
>>>
>>> void
>>> compare (const wchar_t *a, const wchar_t *b, const char *loc)
>>> {
>>>    setlocale (LC_COLLATE, loc);
>>>    int res = wcscoll (a, b);
>>>    char c = res < 0 ? '<' : res > 0 ? '>' : '=';
>>>    printf ("\"%ls\" %c \"%ls\" in %s locale\n", a, c, b, loc);
>>> }
>>>
>>> With this change (and the use of NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS) the test returns
>>> the following on Cygwin:
>>>
>>> $ ./wcscoll_test
>>> "11" > "1.1" in POSIX locale
>>> "11" = "1.1" in en_US.UTF-8 locale
>>> "11" > "1 2" in POSIX locale
>>> "11" < "1 2" in en_US.UTF-8 locale
>>>
>>> It still differs from Linux, but it's good enough to make the emacs test
>>> pass.  Moreover, this behavior actually seems more reasonable to me than
>>> the Linux behavior.  After all, if you're ignoring punctuation, how can
>>> you decide which of "11" or "1.1" comes first?
>>
>> Careful.  POSIX is proposing some wording that say that normal locales
>> should always implement a fallback of last resort (and that locales that
>> do not do so should have a special name including '@', to make it
>> obvious).  It is not standardized yet, but worth thinking about.
>>
>> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=938
>> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=963
>>
>> The intent of that wording is that if ignoring punctuation could cause
>> two strings to otherwise compare equal, the fallback of a total ordering
>> on all characters means that the final result of strcoll() will not be 0
>> unless the two strings are identical.
>
> In that case, I think Cygwin should start by using NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS in
> non-POSIX locales, with the goal of eventually moving toward emulating
> glibc.  I don't know what fallback glibc uses or how hard it would be to
> implement this on Cygwin.

I withdraw this suggestion.  I took a look at the glibc code, and I 
don't see any reasonable way for Cygwin to emulate it precisely.  On the 
other hand, I have an idea for a simple fallback.  I'll play with it a 
little and then submit a patch.

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple