From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10977 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2005 00:39:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10967 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2005 00:39:31 -0000 Received: from c-24-61-23-223.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (HELO cgf.cx) (24.61.23.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:39:31 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 1528313C0EC; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:39:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: MinGW readline -- revised Message-ID: <20050725003930.GA31264@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200507190011.j6J0B1Ma014410@sethra.codesourcery.com> <20050724211016.GA798@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050724211016.GA798@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:10:16PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >These look fine; the changes aren't quite the way I'd have liked them, >but if they've been taken for readline 5.1, it's important that we >minimize divergence. Chris, do these parts look OK to you? *** readline/input.c 8 Dec 2002 22:31:37 -0000 1.5 --- readline/input.c 18 Jul 2005 23:59:21 -0000 *************** rl_getc (stream) *** 422,431 **** --- 422,438 ---- int result; unsigned char c; while (1) { + #ifdef __MINGW32__ + /* On Windows, use a special routine to read a single character + from the console. (Otherwise, no characters are available + until the user hits the return key.) */ + if (isatty (fileno (stream))) + return getch (); + #endif result = read (fileno (stream), &c, sizeof (unsigned char)); if (result == sizeof (unsigned char)) return (c); This doesn't look right. Shouldn't there be an ifdef there? It's a minor point but it looks like this would potentially produce dead code. Other than that I have no objections other than to add an obligatory grumble about the need to use a getch windows-ism. cgf