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=f1m1yvBH7SZ5O7CK
	eO+HdqroYBXhWketks35XI4+KSHf+urfVnyU/TCpWXHoHExPCFwslF0As98YCnzS
	YdcIWp3dRZO9bYx9EIhMbjAkwM2UHGJiVPk8n1Sl7YUd2CBqTYquHO/DZfCbr/dA
	CLDsuZF9ka3xDNuA/PWbJ93BlYU=
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=uSHIZbc2r+RtoDVsYwFXUu
	Lc+Fc=; b=o78L3Yzd6Grh9SC6XBkAGn9gLjscfnR5AsJ+Oj7rqVYjZlRjwwyBI8
	NdX+Ls4I4jJzPo5m8o20Jc0z82yJ3K20bU6yX25gYy7cYMkOMHqLk/RuRjTaYZhJ
	4iQo90pzxLtdi1tm00eCgzGCnXZu6WFP7mWtNUjkkP/K9x/Q9pzf8=
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=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: limerock03.mail.cornell.edu
X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already.
Subject: Re: Bug in collation functions?
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <563148AF DOT 1000502 AT cornell DOT edu> <5631996D DOT 7040908 AT redhat DOT com> <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>
From: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
Message-ID: <56323F2E.4030807@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:45:50 -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: <20151029153516.GJ5319@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 10/29/2015 11:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 29 08:59, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 10/29/2015 4:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Oct 29 08:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Oct 28 21:58, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2015 04:14 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>> It's my understanding that collation is supposed to take whitespace and
>>>>>> punctuation into account in the POSIX locale but not in other locales.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite right. It is up to the locale definition whether whitespace
>>>>> affects collation.  But you are correct that in the POSIX locale,
>>>>> whitespace must not be ignored in collation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be the case on Cygwin.  Here's a test case using
>>>>>> wcscoll, but the same problem occurs with strcoll.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because the locale definitions are different in cygwin than they
>>>>> are in glibc.  But it is not a bug in Cygwin; POSIX allows for different
>>>>> systems to have different locale definitions while still using the same
>>>>> locale name like en_US.UTF-8.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, strcoll and wcscoll in Cygwin are implemented using the Windows
>>>> function CompareStringW with the LCID set to the locale matching the
>>>> POSIX locale setting.  I'm rather glad I didn't have to implement this
>>>> by myself... :}
>>>
>>> OTOH, CompareString has a couple of flags to control its behaviour, see
>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd317761%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>>>
>>> Right now Cygwin calls CompareStringW with dwCmpFlags set to 0, but there
>>> are flags like NORM_IGNORENONSPACE, NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS.  I'm open to a
>>> discussion how to change the settings to more closely resemble the rules
>>> on Linux.
>>>
>>> E.g.  wcscoll simply calls wcscmp rather than CompareStringW for the
>>> C/POSIX locale anyway.  So, would it makes sense to set the flags to
>>> NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS in other locales?
>>
>> I think so.  That's what the native Windows build of emacs does in this
>> situation.
>
> Is that all it's doing?  I'm asking because using NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS
> does not exaclty resemble the behaviour on Linux on my W10 box:
>
>      "11" > "1.1" in POSIX locale
> !!! "11" > "1.1" in en_US.UTF-8 locale
>      "11" > "1 2" in POSIX locale
>      "11" < "1 2" in en_US.UTF-8 locale

I just noticed that myself and was going to ask about that difference. 
I don't see anything else that emacs is doing on native Windows.  But in 
the test I referred to above, the locale is set to "enu_USA" in the 
native Windows build.  Does that explain the discrepancy?  If not, I can 
ask on the emacs-devel list whether the test passes on Windows.

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