On 02/06/21 17.50, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
So from the outset the code added around 79444c92943 (utf8: handle systems that don't write BOM for UTF-16, 2019-02-12) needs to be more careful (although this looked broken before), i.e. we should test exact known-good bytes and see if UTF-16 is really what we think it is, etc. This is likely broken on any big-endian non-GNUish iconv implementation.
So we're still fixing for utf-16le case, right? And what about known-good bytes on utf-16be? -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
