Review requested:

• @nodejs/performance

cc @mertcanaltin maybe there is an alternative fix.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/70337/

Thanks for catching this. I'm sorry for the trouble this has caused. Thank you for the detailed explanation, @ChALkeR.

@mcollina Thanks for the ping. I'll look into an alternative fix - I think separate mappings for the two encodings would be a good solution.

@mertcanaltin Is there any encoding in TextDecoder API which can utilize the Latin1 codepath?
My assumption is no, hence the removal of that method (as nothing else uses it)

@mertcanaltin Is there any encoding in TextDecoder API which can utilize the Latin1 codepath? My assumption is no, hence the removal of that method (as nothing else uses it)

Yes, I just checked, and as you said, there is no valid use case for the Latin1 method in the TextDecoder API, so it can be removed.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.56%. Comparing base (d1ab5ef) to head (a76afd8).
⚠️ Report is 43 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #60889   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.55%   88.56%           
=======================================
  Files         703      703           
  Lines      208291   208250   -41     
  Branches    40174    40156   -18     
=======================================
- Hits       184454   184429   -25     
+ Misses      15829    15826    -3     
+ Partials     8008     7995   -13     

I tried a fix #60893
@mcollina @ChALkeR

I think this should be separate PRs, because:

1. DecodeLatin1 is unused and can be removed, which src: implement Windows-1252 encoding support and update related tests #60893 doesn't do but this PR does. Upd: fixed
2. To make backporting easier

Also tests from #58890 would be helpful (upd: #60893 covers that now!)

No objection for going ahead and landing #60893 though, but then it has to be backported to all branches which regressed

Let's go with #60893, it looks cleaner after an update

Not closing this PR until that lands though in case something arises on review

Let's go with #60893, it looks cleaner after an update

Not closing this PR until that lands though in case something arises on review

Okay, thank you very much for your support and details. It was great working with you. 🚀

closing because the other PR landed