> I've noticed another duplication in the UDF code: there > is NLS support and separate UTF-8 support. UTF-8 is support by 2 ways > actually: with -o utf8 and -o iocharset=utf8 which imply different > codepaths. Specific UTF-8 support is probably slightly faster by > avoiding calls and basically doing everything with shifts (or can be > made so with a small patch). Should I perhaps kill one of them? Is > iocharset!=utf8 still of any importance? I haven't seen it in ages. > Perhaps we could keep just the performant UTF-8 support and map > iocharset=utf8 to it and drop iocharset!=utf8? iocharset!=utf8 probably > has no users anyway so keeping it we're likely to keep bugs and code > duplication with no benefit. > Linux seems to support UTF-8-only pretty strongly: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/utf8.html (message from Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:42:45 GMT). And I completely agree. If it's ok to kill iocharset!=utf8 I'll propose a series of 3 patches (killing iocharset!=utf8, extending utf16toutf8/utf8toutf16 for unaligned input, changing UDF code to use common functions) -- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
