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=TQLch6azSRCdxtVP
	gupUHCxOa7B26Gz1I+LJv/e6LC85IgoarN1ktoieUTdWyulQ2nB0lemwVZq3I/GH
	6ZtZwd0QqSwk0Nxai/nVMyCA01oXhHhSAswJn59prS2bYTMwGBk5S8h6AgjtVe+p
	oARugUXnQk4U63Wam+hols0GQ4A=
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=lCX3QKAF/cXHgOLmETqaG4
	cmV44=; b=MIIHa+q9A5OjJ6tLmMI4cWVGWe5CMazMc9hwJrj1GwMbyP8iyh8kHE
	BDjA7dcTatnS78sXkAI+CnU34p4LoUQ0berUeQ3BSvs6M4Ix4D78YAVHDOisemVL
	JHIEh9DsT1p8lXrnF/PhsZM/igXp6gI/sb4IwNiF4Oirp5Qy5HOs4=
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=-2.1 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:	<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> <56329462 DOT 2090206 AT cornell DOT edu> <56329BE8 DOT 808 AT cornell DOT edu> <20151030120320 DOT GO5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
From:	Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
Message-ID:	<56337996.2000400@cornell.edu>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:07:18 -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:	<20151030120320.GO5319@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Hi Corinna,

On 10/30/2015 8:03 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 29 18:21, Ken Brown wrote:
>> The fallback I had in mind is to return the shorter string if they have
>> different lengths and otherwise to revert to wcscmp.
 >
> I had a longer look into this suggestion and the below code and it took
> me some time to find out what bugged me with it:
>
> What about str/wcsxfrm?
>
> Per POSIX, calling strcmp on the result of strxfrm is equivalent to
> calling strcoll (analogue with wcs*).  If you extend *coll to perform an
> extra check on the length, you will have cases in which the above rule
> fails.  You can't perform the length test on the result of *xfrm and
> expect the same result as in *coll.
>
> In fact, when calling LCMapStringW with NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS (you would
> have to do this anyway if we add this flag in *coll), the resulting
> transformed strings created from the input strings "11" and "1.1" would
> be identical, so a length test on the xfrm string is not meaningful at
> all.
>
> The bottom line is, afaics, we must make sure that CompareStringW and
> LCMapStringW are called the same way, and their result/output has to be
> returned to the caller.  Performing an extra check in *coll which can't
> be reliably performed in *xfrm is not feasible.
>
> Does that make sense?

Yes, I see the problem, and I don't see a good way around it.  So I 
think we probably have to leave things as they are and live with the 
fact that we can't do comparisons that ignore whitespace and punctuation.

The alternative of allowing str/wcscoll to return 0 on unequal strings 
doesn't seem feasible in view of Eric's comments.

What about the other issue I raised: Should setlocale return null to 
indicate an error if it's given an invalid locale name like en_DE.UTF-8?

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

- Raw text -