[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#6705: w32 cmdproxy.c pass args to cygwin; erroneous charset conversi

From: Laimonas Vėbra
Subject: bug#6705: w32 cmdproxy.c pass args to cygwin; erroneous charset conversion (problem description, solution/suggestion)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:35:40 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100701 SeaMonkey/2.0.6

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:57:46 +0300
From: Laimonas Vėbra<address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden

It's not the problem to pass utf-8 arguments to natvive (mingw)

If these MinGW applications use Unicode (UTF-16) APIs, that's true.
But if they use the ANSI APIs (and most of them do), then you simply
cannot pass to them command-line arguments encoded in any encoding
other than the current codepage.

It's not true when we're launching subprocess using CreateProcessA()
and passing args to it, i.e. like Emacs does). Try:

#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
        printf("argv[1]: %s\n", argv[1]);
        return 0;

gcc.EXE (GCC) 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3)

gcc -o test test.c

M-x grep
test.exe "ĔĿİ" > out.txt

$ cat out.txt
argv[1]: ĔĿİ

In my view, users of the w32 build of Emacs who use Cygwin tools
outside Emacs are a minority.  There are native w32 ports of most of
the tools you have in Cygwin, and there is the Cygwin build of Emacs.
I don't see why the handful of Emacs developers who contribute to the
w32 port should invest a significant part of their scarce resources on

bzr log says that much of the active development of the w32proc.c and others actually ended somewhere in the 2001-2003... ;-) On the other hand -- why when you think w32 developers should invest their time developing w32 stuff at all (if we have cygwin build which works „pretty well“)...?

fixing incompatibilities between the w32 Emacs and Cygwin, when a
Cygwin build of Emacs is available and works pretty well, judging by
the few of its users who are active on the emacs-devel list.  I don't

Are they using it in unicode aspect/context? It's the most important question, because many people don't get any problems if their are not dealing with unicode (or at first/least with non english ansi/multilingual aspects).

know why you say it's "potentially" more buggy -- it uses mostly the
same code that runs on GNU/Linux, so actually it should be _less_
buggy than the native w32 build, because it is used by a larger number
of users.  Did you even try to switch to the Cygwin build?  If not,
perhaps you should.

Same question -- why when bother with w32 development at all?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]