[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:16:43 +0300 |
> From: Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de>
> Cc: 37633@debbugs.gnu.org, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 21:24:17 +0200
>
> > But the column numbers are counted in the compiler output, and no one
> > said that the compiler output must be encoded the same as the source
> > file.
>
> The column numbers are written as decimal digits in the compiler output.
> They
> are not even calculated, they are just extracted.
>
> Indeed, the compiler output can be in a different encoding, but it doesn't
> matter. The navigation that needs to change is in the source code file.
> This
> is compiler output from compiling an iso-latin encoded file, the compiler
> output itself is utf-8:
>
> test-iso.c:3:23: error: ‘c’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> 3 | printf("test��� %i", c);
> | ^
>
> The 23(-1) are the numbers of bytes to get from the start of line to the
> missing variable 'c'. The three � are there, because the compilation buffer
> contains invalid characters now. They are iso-latin characters, invalid in
> utf-8. But this is irrelevant. All the compilation mode does is extract the
> test-iso.c (file name), 3 (line number) and 23 (byte index). Navigation
> happens in test-iso.c, it's a file (the C compiler can't access emacs
> buffers), autodetection is pretty reliable.
Sorry, now I'm confused. Does the compiler count bytes in its output
(where a Latin-1 line could be recoded in UTF-8, and thus have a
different number of bytes), or does it count bytes in the original
file (in this case encoded in Latin-1, i.e. 1 byte per character)?
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/05
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Anton Ertl, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Bernd Paysan, 2019/10/06
- bug#37633: Column part interpreted wrong in compilation mode, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/06