X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:01:01 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 1.7.0-48: [BUG] Passing characters above 128 from bash command line Message-ID: <20090603170101.GB29603@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <4A204149.2050009@sidefx.com> <4A2051E5.6060600@sidefx.com> <20090602205440.GF23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A26782C.9040207@sidefx.com> <20090603142755.GM23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090603160225.GA27039@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090603161158.GB23419@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A26AB1D.1090404@sidefx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A26AB1D.1090404@sidefx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:55:57PM -0400, Edward Lam wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jun 3 12:02, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:27:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> On Jun 3 09:18, Edward Lam wrote: >>>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>>> The question is, what do you expect? [...] >>>>> [...] >>>>> Wikipedia has several suggestions on how to handle invalid UTF-8 byte >>>>> sequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8). Personally, I favor the >>>>> rule that uses the replacement character. >>>> Chris implemented using the invalid code point solution. The discussion >>>> in http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-utf8@nl.linux.org/msg00080.html >>>> supports this solution. What's missing so far is the way back, from >>>> an invalid single second half of a surrogate pair in the 0xDCxx range >>>> back to the correct byte value. I'm just looking into that. >>> The way back was not, AFAIK, needed for Cygwin programs. I don't think >>> there is a valid way back for Windows programs. >> >> The way back is not needed for the argv handling in Cygwin, but it >> gets necessary if you converted to UTF-16 in other circumstances. >> It's not much of a problem since the way back is a no-brainer, in >> contrast to the conversion to UTF-16. > >What is the current state of affairs in cygwin 1.7.0-48? Is the invalid >code point solution currently being used when converting the command >line to UTF-16 when spawning non-cygwin processes? What I'm trying to >understand is where the command line truncation is taking place, in the >parent or child process. > >If the truncation is happening in the child process because of the >invalid code point, then perhaps we should consider using the >replacement character solution when spawning non-cygwin child processes. >IMHO, having a bad character is better than having a truncated command >line. At least, the problem (invalid UTF-8) then becomes more obvious. As Corinna said above: "Chris implemented using the invalid code point solution" That's what is in Cygwin's CVS and in the latest snapshot. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/