X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: <ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se>
Message-Id: <200412291442.iBTEgSJO014313@speedy.ludd.ltu.se>
Subject: setlocale patch
To: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:42:28 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-ltu-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ltu-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

I've put the setlocale code provided by Brian Inglis and Alexander
Aganichev in my tree and recompiled it. A minor correction with
regards to signed/unsigned comparion made it compile.

Then I recompiled the setlocal.c file with "gcc -Wall -g -DTEST" to
get a test program. Just running it seems to be ok and it reports
"Locale: sv_SE.850", a map of characters (which I only lightly
inspected), a collate table (not verified) and a number and date/time
format. Then I tried with "setlocal C" and it seems ok too (again no
deep analysis). Then I tried "setlocal en", "setlocal rubbish",
"setlocal sv" and "setlocal sv_SE" and the program displays reasonable
things, except maybe for the collate table. In these cases the collate
table is all zeroes. 

Perhaps it is the right thing to do. But I wanted to ask. And I
thought (may very well be completely wrong) that locales may be
abbrevated, like instead of using "sv_SE.850" I may use "sv_SE" or
"sv" which would use an approximate collate table, which then may be
further be qualified.

Again I don't know much about this sort of stuff.

Should there be some changes to setlocal.txh?

Is there a more complete test program for tests/...?


Right,

						MartinS