Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
> I see that it is good idea, but I propose minor change for your
> fix.  Perhaps, it will be what you want.

I think the problem here is that the code was not computing unibyte_mask 
correctly; that is, the comment for unibyte_mask is correct, and usage of 
unibyte_mask is correct, but unibyte_mask was sometimes initialized incorrectly 
in unusual locales. I installed the attached patch to try to fix that. Computing 
an optimal unibyte_mask (for a reasonable definition of "optimal") is likely 
more trouble than it is worth.