https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112652
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6) > > --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot > > Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > >> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > >> Given that C++ says e.g. in https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.ccon#3.1 > >> that program is ill-formed if some character lacks encoding in the > >> execution > >> character set, I'm afraid the Solaris iconv behavior results in violation > >> of > > Although I can barely wrap my head around the standardese there, I had a > look at n4928 (the last? C++23 draft), which has a different wording > here (p.25, 5.13.3): The testcase is for a C++26 feature, which made those ill-formed. > The current Solaris iconv behaviour certainly isn't particularly > intuitive and I'll ask the Solaris engineers about it. However, there's > the question what to do about the testcase? Just xfail it on Solaris or > omit just the two affected subtests there? xfailing is one possibility, but then on Solaris we'll never support C++26 properly. Or require using GNU libiconv rather than Solaris iconv if it can't deal with that?
