Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:

> > I was not asking the general question, I was asking how it fails
> > to conform wrt the particular technical issue at hand.
> 
> Since GCC doesn't have any code that does (A), (B), or (C) it doesn't
> place a burden on GCC to require it to do (B).  That's sufficient to
> answer the techinical issue at hand.  While that implies GCC doesn't
> conform, I said so explictly because Paul Eggert said that c99 is often
> implemented using GCC.

I am the opposite of an expert on this topic.  But in fact gcc does
appear to have code related to (A), (B), and (C).  I repeat those
choices here from Paul's original e-mail:

>   A.  Convert everything to UCNs in basic source characters as soon
>       as possible, that is, in translation phase 1.  (This is what
>       C++ requires, apparently.)
> 
>   B.  Use native encodings where possible, UCNs otherwise.
> 
>   C.  Convert everything to wide characters as soon as possible
>       using an internal encoding that encompasses the entire source
>       character set and all UCNs.

Now, see libcpp/charset.c.  See the -finput-charset= option.  To me
that looks like code which does something related to (A), (B), or (C).

Ian