Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:45112 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19302 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2009 08:29:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jul 2009 08:29:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mozo@mozo.jp; spf=permerror; sender-id=permerror Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mozo@mozo.jp; sender-id=permerror Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mozo.jp from 209.85.217.228 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mozo@mozo.jp X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.228 mail-gx0-f228.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.228] ([209.85.217.228:33795] helo=mail-gx0-f228.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2B/C2-01210-EE6BE6A4 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:29:35 -0400 Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so9188gxk.23 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:29:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.35.6 with SMTP id i6mr6830852agi.92.1248769772110; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:29:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A6E700E.7040304@lerdorf.com> References: <4A6E700E.7040304@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:29:12 +0900 Message-ID: To: Rasmus Lerdorf Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt From: mozo@mozo.jp (Moriyoshi Koizumi) That is a test that is involved in the iconv's transilteration feature, the behavior of which may vary by the platform you use. I guess we don't actually need to test it then. Moriyoshi On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Moriyoshi, or someone who knows CP932 and EUC-JP, could you please have > a look at ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt > > It is failing in all the branches, so I am assuming the expected output > listed in the test is wrong, but I am a bit lost in figuring out how to > tell what is going wrong at byte 113 into the output there. > > -Rasmus >