--- rajarshi das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:34:02AM -0700, rajarshi
> > das wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, the second call to NATIVE_TO_UTF is still
> > present
> > > in the modified code. Typically, one wouldnt
> want
> > to
> > > do a NATIVE_TO_UTF(NATIVE_TO_UTF(uv)) which is
> > what I
> > > am doing due to the second call. But does that
> > make a
> > > difference to miniperl ?
> >
> > Well, the code is linked into miniperl, so I can
> > only assume that it's
> > getting called.
> >
> > If so, does removing the second instance of
> > NATIVE_TO_UTF() improve things?
> No it doesnt. The same error messages are generated.
>
However, if I change the first instance to :
--- utf8.c 2004-11-17 18:22:09.000000000 +0530
+++ utf8.c.2 2005-07-28 13:48:24.000000000 +0530
@@ -363,6 +363,11 @@ Perl_utf8n_to_uvuni(pTHX_ U8 *s,
STRLEN
warning = UTF8_WARN_EMPTY;
goto malformed;
}
+#ifdef EBCDIC
+ if (uv == 0xBA) {
+ uv = NATIVE_TO_UTF(uv);
+ }
+#endif
if (UTF8_IS_INVARIANT(uv)) {
if (retlen)
This allows gmake to complete.
Thanks for all your help on this.
>
> Thanks,
> Rajarshi.
> >
> > Nicholas Clark
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
