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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=Ta5V2r2zd/hagb3jJX4h0oSgb0p/9kkgs1fRNMbSs1l
	MeIDyhUnGQ8M+hU3JBULzRBU90i6roqXuIud4RRW+kcugKQJTzCTqzT4cVMks9Y0
	4473FViZ+2T6+IeB4PYxdvlHtavwKp7BbvdpJ5pVsIJgQAdMsyccMyDGD4w3NFHw
	=
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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=APsjNE6hvHGNXaMWMi4c3TQI9II=; b=QxLQAOWlsmG4Gn6nd
	3gBPRYiJLi2QPcuyxnoBINmVKEZCL9kXT939BEod0t8u3EXdMErZbJAoqNepUHBz
	DMwLInRwtKLQ/FnnVZ7aXQKUPPFVdHmY0b2EnK6PlybnzjBO+5Lu9X0Hd6Sa7cen
	9l5ldF2heVTGxYVOy2pl85bmpI=
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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HDKIM-Filter:v2.10.3, clarify, Hx-languages-length:1846
X-HELO: conssluserg-01.nifty.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-01.nifty.com w5P9uYB8012803
X-Nifty-SrcIP: [125.3.30.127]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:56:37 +0900
From: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Date field of ls -l command is garbled in latest cygwin1.dll snapshot.
Message-Id: <20180625185637.88bcc0173c180bc3f95f4348@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <ee8da875-20a2-1aec-3e77-e479455fba62@towo.net>
References: <20180623024737 DOT 95cb452e6e9541eb05393983 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>	<20180623053927 DOT 1e57462e18394d13c71cf3fd AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>	<20180623055913 DOT 808b584540e5f33ab164b16c AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>	<20180623080659 DOT 27e779440448629b512928f6 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>	<b6e770ed-1129-f6fa-7319-cafde8ca9b31 AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>	<f94533e8-8e21-d9a9-15f1-4fdd97fec98a AT towo DOT net>	<ee8da875-20a2-1aec-3e77-e479455fba62 AT towo DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:34:06 +0200
Thomas Wolff wrote:
> I would have chosen other markers than 0/1 for the two cases (maybe 
> "firstlast" for the new one), and not put it in the middle, but you 
> fixed it anyway; except for the Private Use ranges E000..F8FF, 
> F0000..FFFFD, 100000..10FFFD, but their category Co isn't used anyway.

Thanks for your comments.

Mark for "Last":
I will use isNormalOrRangeFirst/isRangeLast instead of 0/1 to clarify
the intent.

Position of "Last" mark:
I put the mark 0/1 in the middle, i.e. before the category mark, so that
uniq command can ignore it with -f option which is used in your script.
If I put it after category mark, uniq command put a blank line before
"Last" entry, which will be replaced with undesirable "range" by sed.

Category "Co":
They are already removed in your original script, so I followed it.

> I suggest you submit your patch directly to cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com. 

I will submit a new patch to cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com.

> One issue, though:
> Apparently, you used a Unicode version other than 10.0 as a reference, 
> probably 11.0. Maybe the fixing patch should be based on the same 
> version, for better clarity and to reduce the diff (fewer changes in 
> categories.t and none in caseconv.t).
> We can update to 11.0 in addition, but:
> Brian wrote:
> >> These entries change with every Unicode release, and a new one came 
> >> out a few
> >> weeks ago, updated here yesterday.
> The library updated to 11.0 is probably icu, which isn't used here. The 
> libc generation scripts use the original Unicode files which are 
> packaged in unicode-ucd which is still at 10.0.

I will remake a patch based on UnicodeData.txt of version 10.0.

Thank you.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

--
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