abhina.sreeskantharajan added a comment. In D153418#4478766 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153418#4478766>, @tahonermann wrote:
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not too familiar with icu4c, but I think >> adding support for ICU would be the better long-term solution since it seems >> to allow the same behaviour across different platforms. > > I tend to agree. Additionally, as more Unicode support is added to C++, the > likelihood that we'll want to use other functionality from ICU increases. > >> However, the issue on the z/OS platform is that there currently isn't >> support for this library so iconv seems to be the only solution we can use >> until we do get support. So would an alternative be to use iconv only on >> z/OS (and hopefully this is a temporary solution until icu is supported on >> z/OS) and use icu on all other platforms? > > ICU isn't supported on z/OS because the historical z/OS compiler (xlC) never > gained support for C++11 or later so support for z/OS was dropped when ICU > moved to C++11. Now that IBM has embraced LLVM and Clang, I would expect it > to be possible to build ICU for z/OS again with moderate porting effort. It > would be great if someone from IBM could confirm whether such an effort is > underway (@hubert.reinterpretcast?). We currently have no plan or resources allocated towards porting ICU on z/OS. Our users also rely on iconv for the system locales, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it seems like ICU does not use system locales so this may not meet our users' needs. So we would still prefer to have iconv support available at the very least for z/OS, even if ICU is the preferred default. I'll also post the same reply on the RFC so we can continue the discussion there Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153418/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153418 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
