On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 01:10:17AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > I think this patch is fine for now, but given what I mentioned above, > maybe we want to add a weather balloon in a future series to see if > anyone is compiling with NO_ICONV. After all, if everybody has easy > access to iconv(3), then we might be able to drop support for NO_ICONV > and the work maintaining it entails without negatively impacting anyone. As you say, for now I'd want this patch to land in our tree to unbreak our test suite with NO_ICONV. It fixes the status quo, and whether or not we want to drop NO_ICONV certainly is a bigger discussion. We do have one platform that doesn't have iconv, namely QNX. I rather doubt that anybody has access to that platform, or that anybody really uses it. So having a test balloon out there could help us figure out whether there are any users of NO_ICONV left. But when it is used I don't mind that flag staying around. Patrick
