* readline rebase 5.1->6.2?
@ 2011-03-22 15:43 Jan Kratochvil
2011-03-22 16:43 ` Joel Brobecker
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-03-22 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb; +Cc: Kai Tietz, Eli Zaretskii, Christopher Faylor
Hi,
it is a bity pity the sourceware tree still bundles readline-5.1 while distros
build GDB with readline less than 5 years old.
This means in practice GDB already runs without the custom patches contained
in src/readline/ , just making GDB forked with individual downstream patch fix
ups of the compatibility.
Just the patches are of the kind of MS-related platforms compatibility:
+dnl BEGIN changes for CYGNUS cross-building for Cygwin
+#ifdef __MSDOS__
+#if defined (__GO32__)
+#ifndef __MINGW32__
!+#if defined (SIGWINCH)
? (+#if defined (HAVE_GETPWENT))
Other patches are for rl_prompt and signals where there were enough upstream
readline modifications I do not think these patches are meaningfully
applicable anymore.
Unfortunately there is AFAIK usually (in some cases there is) no testcase of
readline.
Before 7.3 cut off I ask about the opinion on these MS-related platforms
compatibility readline patches, Fedora GNU/Linux runs fine with
readline-6.1-2.fc14 with readline-6.2-2.fc15 soon to be GA and also no
reported problems.
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 15:43 readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-03-22 16:43 ` Joel Brobecker 2011-03-22 16:58 ` Tom Tromey ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-03-22 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb, Kai Tietz, Eli Zaretskii, Christopher Faylor Personally, I'm a little nervous about a readline update so close to branching... I'm not opposed to giving it a try, but I think we should wait for after branching. -- Joel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 15:43 readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 16:43 ` Joel Brobecker @ 2011-03-22 16:58 ` Tom Tromey 2011-03-22 17:19 ` Kai Tietz 2011-03-22 19:05 ` Eli Zaretskii 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2011-03-22 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb, Kai Tietz, Eli Zaretskii, Christopher Faylor >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes: Jan> it is a bity pity the sourceware tree still bundles readline-5.1 Jan> while distros build GDB with readline less than 5 years old. [...] Jan> Before 7.3 cut off I ask about the opinion on these MS-related platforms Jan> compatibility readline patches, Fedora GNU/Linux runs fine with Jan> readline-6.1-2.fc14 with readline-6.2-2.fc15 soon to be GA and also no Jan> reported problems. I think upgrading is a good idea, but I think any upgrade should be done on the trunk after 7.3 branches -- the sooner after the branch is made, the better. Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 15:43 readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 16:43 ` Joel Brobecker 2011-03-22 16:58 ` Tom Tromey @ 2011-03-22 17:19 ` Kai Tietz 2011-03-22 19:05 ` Eli Zaretskii 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Kai Tietz @ 2011-03-22 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb, Kai Tietz, Eli Zaretskii, Christopher Faylor 2011/3/22 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>: > Just the patches are of the kind of MS-related platforms compatibility: > +dnl BEGIN changes for CYGNUS cross-building for Cygwin > +#ifdef __MSDOS__ > +#if defined (__GO32__) > +#ifndef __MINGW32__ > !+#if defined (SIGWINCH) > ? (+#if defined (HAVE_GETPWENT)) > > Other patches are for rl_prompt and signals where there were enough upstream > readline modifications I do not think these patches are meaningfully > applicable anymore. > > Unfortunately there is AFAIK usually (in some cases there is) no testcase of > readline. > > Before 7.3 cut off I ask about the opinion on these MS-related platforms > compatibility readline patches, Fedora GNU/Linux runs fine with > readline-6.1-2.fc14 with readline-6.2-2.fc15 soon to be GA and also no > reported problems. Well, I would also expect that in general those patches aren't meaningfully applicable anymore. But I think this upgrade should wait until 7.3 is escaped. > > Thanks, > Jan > Kai ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 15:43 readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Jan Kratochvil ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-03-22 17:19 ` Kai Tietz @ 2011-03-22 19:05 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-03-22 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb, ktietz, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:43:27 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> > Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz@redhat.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, > Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org> > > Just the patches are of the kind of MS-related platforms compatibility: > +dnl BEGIN changes for CYGNUS cross-building for Cygwin > +#ifdef __MSDOS__ > +#if defined (__GO32__) > +#ifndef __MINGW32__ > !+#if defined (SIGWINCH) > ? (+#if defined (HAVE_GETPWENT)) I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that the local patches we have in GDB wrt the original readline 5.1 are those listed above? If so, the last two are not about MS platforms. > Before 7.3 cut off I ask about the opinion on these MS-related platforms > compatibility readline patches Can you show these patches in full? I'm quite sure the changes related to __MSDOS__ and __GO32__ are still needed, but I'd like to review them. I could also try looking at the __MINGW32__ patches. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 19:05 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-03-22 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb, ktietz, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:05:45 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Just the patches are of the kind of MS-related platforms compatibility: > > +dnl BEGIN changes for CYGNUS cross-building for Cygwin > > +#ifdef __MSDOS__ > > +#if defined (__GO32__) > > +#ifndef __MINGW32__ > > !+#if defined (SIGWINCH) > > ? (+#if defined (HAVE_GETPWENT)) > > I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that the local patches we > have in GDB wrt the original readline 5.1 are those listed above? If > so, the last two are not about MS platforms. The patch for SIGWINCH applies for the case when SIGWINCH is not defined - which happens only on some non-UNIX platforms I guess, I do not know if on MS platforms. With HAVE_GETPWENT you are right that patch may be completely unrelated to the MS platforms. > Can you show these patches in full? I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. Thanks, Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-01 9:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 20:04 ` Tom Tromey 2011-03-22 20:36 ` Joel Brobecker 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-03-22 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb, ktietz, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:48:36 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, > cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org > > I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on > ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz > vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches > with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. OK, I will have a look. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-01 9:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-01 14:19 ` Tom Tromey 2011-04-02 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-01 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jan.kratochvil, gdb, ktietz > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:58:15 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org > > > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:48:36 +0100 > > From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> > > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, > > cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org > > > > I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on > > ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz > > vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches > > with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. > > OK, I will have a look. I compared readline-6.2 with our local changes since 5.1, and I see that the changes below are not in 6.2. I only paid attention to DJGPP/MSDOS-specific patches and to MinGW-specific patches, because Jan seemed to have covered the rest. (One of the MinGW-specific patches has a comment saying the underlying problem should be fixed in readline 5.2, but I don't know what is the problem, so I couldn't check whether it is indeed fixed.) The question is, what should we do about these patches? Submitting them to upstream readline would be the best course (assuming the readline maintainer is willing to include them), but that means we will have to either wait for the next readline release or keep our local patches for the time being. --- display.c 20 Apr 2006 20:05:36 -0000 1.1.1.7 +++ display.c 24 Mar 2008 12:59:51 -0000 1.12 @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ #include <stdio.h> +#ifdef __MSDOS__ +# include <pc.h> +#endif + /* System-specific feature definitions and include files. */ #include "rldefs.h" #include "rlmbutil.h" @@ -1782,9 +1792,18 @@ _rl_move_vert (to) } else { /* delta < 0 */ +#ifdef __MSDOS__ + int row, col; + + fflush (rl_outstream); /* make sure the cursor pos is current! */ + ScreenGetCursor (&row, &col); + ScreenSetCursor (row + delta, col); + i = -delta; /* in case someone wants to use it after the loop */ +#else /* !__MSDOS__ */ if (_rl_term_up && *_rl_term_up) for (i = 0; i < -delta; i++) tputs (_rl_term_up, 1, _rl_output_character_function); +#endif /* !__MSDOS__ */ } _rl_last_v_pos = to; /* Now TO is here */ @@ -2036,9 +2057,12 @@ void _rl_clear_to_eol (count) int count; { +#ifndef __MSDOS__ if (_rl_term_clreol) tputs (_rl_term_clreol, 1, _rl_output_character_function); - else if (count) + else +#endif + if (count) space_to_eol (count); } @@ -2059,10 +2083,15 @@ space_to_eol (count) void _rl_clear_screen () { +#if defined (__GO32__) + ScreenClear (); /* FIXME: only works in text modes */ + ScreenSetCursor (0, 0); /* term_clrpag is "cl" which homes the cursor */ +#else if (_rl_term_clrpag) tputs (_rl_term_clrpag, 1, _rl_output_character_function); else rl_crlf (); +#endif } /* Insert COUNT characters from STRING to the output stream at column COL. */ --- emacs_keymap.c 23 Aug 2002 22:02:28 -0000 1.1.1.3 +++ emacs_keymap.c 5 May 2006 18:26:12 -0000 1.6 @@ -278,7 +278,13 @@ KEYMAP_ENTRY_ARRAY emacs_standard_keymap { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin capital letter Y with acute */ { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin capital letter thorn (Icelandic) */ { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin small letter sharp s (German) */ +#ifndef __MINGW32__ { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin small letter a with grave */ +#else + /* Temporary - this is a bug in readline 5.1 that should be fixed in + readline 5.2. */ + { ISFUNC, 0 }, /* Must leave this unbound for the arrow keys to work. */ +#endif { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin small letter a with acute */ { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin small letter a with circumflex */ { ISFUNC, rl_insert }, /* Latin small letter a with tilde */ --- terminal.c 20 Apr 2006 20:05:37 -0000 1.1.1.7 +++ terminal.c 13 Nov 2006 09:33:30 -0000 1.11 @@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ # include <sys/ioctl.h> #endif /* GWINSZ_IN_SYS_IOCTL && !TIOCGWINSZ */ +#ifdef __MSDOS__ +# include <pc.h> +#endif + #include "rltty.h" #include "tcap.h" @@ -66,6 +70,11 @@ #include "rlshell.h" #include "xmalloc.h" +#if defined (__MINGW32__) +# include <windows.h> +# include <wincon.h> +#endif + #define CUSTOM_REDISPLAY_FUNC() (rl_redisplay_function != rl_redisplay) #define CUSTOM_INPUT_FUNC() (rl_getc_function != rl_getc) @@ -77,8 +86,10 @@ int rl_prefer_env_winsize; /* */ /* **************************************************************** */ +#ifndef __MSDOS__ static char *term_buffer = (char *)NULL; static char *term_string_buffer = (char *)NULL; +#endif /* !__MSDOS__ */ static int tcap_initialized; @@ -207,6 +218,20 @@ _rl_get_screen_size (tty, ignore_env) } #endif /* TIOCGWINSZ */ + /* For MinGW, we get the console size from the Windows API. */ +#if defined (__MINGW32__) + HANDLE hConOut = GetStdHandle (STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE); + if (hConOut != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) + { + CONSOLE_SCREEN_BUFFER_INFO scr; + if (GetConsoleScreenBufferInfo (hConOut, &scr)) + { + wc = scr.dwSize.X; + wr = scr.srWindow.Bottom - scr.srWindow.Top + 1; + } + } +#endif + #if defined (__EMX__) _emx_get_screensize (&_rl_screenwidth, &_rl_screenheight); #endif @@ -230,7 +255,10 @@ _rl_get_screen_size (tty, ignore_env) if (_rl_screenwidth <= 0) _rl_screenwidth = wc; -#if !defined (__DJGPP__) +#if defined (__DJGPP__) + if (_rl_screenwidth <= 0) + _rl_screenwidth = ScreenCols (); +#else if (_rl_screenwidth <= 0 && term_string_buffer) _rl_screenwidth = tgetnum ("co"); #endif @@ -246,7 +274,10 @@ _rl_get_screen_size (tty, ignore_env) if (_rl_screenheight <= 0) _rl_screenheight = wr; -#if !defined (__DJGPP__) +#if defined (__DJGPP__) + if (_rl_screenheight <= 0) + _rl_screenheight = ScreenRows (); +#else if (_rl_screenheight <= 0 && term_string_buffer) _rl_screenheight = tgetnum ("li"); #endif @@ -397,6 +431,23 @@ _rl_init_terminal_io (terminal_name) if (term == 0) term = "dumb"; +#ifdef __MSDOS__ + _rl_term_im = _rl_term_ei = _rl_term_ic = _rl_term_IC = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_up = _rl_term_dc = _rl_term_DC = _rl_visible_bell = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_ku = _rl_term_kd = _rl_term_kl = _rl_term_kr = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_mm = _rl_term_mo = (char *)NULL; + _rl_terminal_can_insert = term_has_meta = _rl_term_autowrap = 0; + _rl_term_cr = "\r"; + _rl_term_clreol = _rl_term_clrpag = _rl_term_backspace = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_goto = _rl_term_pc = _rl_term_ip = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_ks = _rl_term_ke =_rl_term_vs = _rl_term_ve = (char *)NULL; + _rl_term_kh = _rl_term_kH = _rl_term_at7 = _rl_term_kI = (char *)NULL; +#if defined(HACK_TERMCAP_MOTION) + _rl_term_forward_char = (char *)NULL; +#endif + + _rl_get_screen_size (tty, 0); +#else /* !__MSDOS__ */ /* I've separated this out for later work on not calling tgetent at all if the calling application has supplied a custom redisplay function, (and possibly if the application has supplied a custom input function). */ @@ -499,6 +550,8 @@ _rl_init_terminal_io (terminal_name) if (!term_has_meta) _rl_term_mm = _rl_term_mo = (char *)NULL; +#endif /* !__MSDOS__ */ + /* Attempt to find and bind the arrow keys. Do not override already bound keys in an overzealous attempt, however. */ @@ -595,10 +648,12 @@ _rl_backspace (count) { register int i; +#ifndef __MSDOS__ if (_rl_term_backspace) for (i = 0; i < count; i++) tputs (_rl_term_backspace, 1, _rl_output_character_function); else +#endif for (i = 0; i < count; i++) putc ('\b', _rl_out_stream); return 0; @@ -628,12 +683,17 @@ rl_ding () default: break; case VISIBLE_BELL: +#ifdef __MSDOS__ + ScreenVisualBell (); + break; +#else if (_rl_visible_bell) { tputs (_rl_visible_bell, 1, _rl_output_character_function); break; } /* FALLTHROUGH */ +#endif case AUDIBLE_BELL: fprintf (stderr, "\007"); fflush (stderr); @@ -685,6 +745,7 @@ void _rl_set_cursor (im, force) int im, force; { +#ifndef __MSDOS__ if (_rl_term_ve && _rl_term_vs) { if (force || im != rl_insert_mode) @@ -695,4 +756,5 @@ _rl_set_cursor (im, force) tputs (_rl_term_ve, 1, _rl_output_character_function); } } +#endif } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-04-01 9:30 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-01 14:19 ` Tom Tromey 2011-04-02 10:29 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-02 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2011-04-01 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: jan.kratochvil, gdb, ktietz >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: Eli> I compared readline-6.2 with our local changes since 5.1, and I see Eli> that the changes below are not in 6.2. I only paid attention to Eli> DJGPP/MSDOS-specific patches and to MinGW-specific patches, because Eli> Jan seemed to have covered the rest. (One of the MinGW-specific Eli> patches has a comment saying the underlying problem should be fixed in Eli> readline 5.2, but I don't know what is the problem, so I couldn't Eli> check whether it is indeed fixed.) Eli> The question is, what should we do about these patches? Submitting Eli> them to upstream readline would be the best course (assuming the Eli> readline maintainer is willing to include them), but that means we Eli> will have to either wait for the next readline release or keep our Eli> local patches for the time being. Yes, submit them. It is ok if it takes a while for the new readline to reach our tree. The result can't be worse than our current situation. We don't necessarily have to wait for the upstream maintainer to do a new release. If he accepts the patches we can import 6.2 and keep them, to be deleted when we import the subsequent release. Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-04-01 14:19 ` Tom Tromey @ 2011-04-02 10:29 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-03 3:01 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-02 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: jan.kratochvil, gdb, ktietz > From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com > Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:19:32 -0600 > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > Eli> The question is, what should we do about these patches? Submitting > Eli> them to upstream readline would be the best course (assuming the > Eli> readline maintainer is willing to include them), but that means we > Eli> will have to either wait for the next readline release or keep our > Eli> local patches for the time being. > > Yes, submit them. It is ok if it takes a while for the new readline to > reach our tree. The result can't be worse than our current situation. I sent a private mail to the readline maintainer with the patches. Let's see what he replies, and take it from there. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-04-02 10:29 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-03 3:01 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-25 16:05 ` Jan Kratochvil 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-03 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tromey, jan.kratochvil, gdb, ktietz > Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 13:29:45 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com > > > From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> > > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com > > Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:19:32 -0600 > > > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > > > > Eli> The question is, what should we do about these patches? Submitting > > Eli> them to upstream readline would be the best course (assuming the > > Eli> readline maintainer is willing to include them), but that means we > > Eli> will have to either wait for the next readline release or keep our > > Eli> local patches for the time being. > > > > Yes, submit them. It is ok if it takes a while for the new readline to > > reach our tree. The result can't be worse than our current situation. > > I sent a private mail to the readline maintainer with the patches. > Let's see what he replies, and take it from there. Chet agreed: > Sure, I'll look at applying the patches. They'll be in the next readline > release. So we can now act on the assumption that the DJGPP-related patches to readline are no longer an issue. Note that I didn't do anything about the MinGW patches. I suggest that their author(s) submit them to readline. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-04-03 3:01 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-25 16:05 ` Jan Kratochvil 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-04-25 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: tromey, gdb, ktietz On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:00:55 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Note that I didn't do anything about the MinGW patches. I suggest > that their author(s) submit them to readline. The only one I found is attached, it is already present in readline-6.2-001. The configure.in part `*-mingw*)' is also present there. Therefore I believe we can now rebase readline to 6.2-001 for gdb-7.4, I will send some patch for test into gdb-patches. Thanks, Jan --- readline-5.1-004/input.c 2005-07-05 04:30:24.000000000 +0200 +++ ./input.c 2011-04-02 10:43:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -220,6 +220,16 @@ rl_gather_tyi () } #endif /* O_NDELAY */ +#if defined (__MINGW32__) + /* We use getch to read console input, so use the same + mechanism to check for more. Otherwise, we don't know. */ + if (isatty (fileno (rl_instream))) + chars_avail = _kbhit (); + else + chars_avail = 0; + result = 0; +#endif + /* If there's nothing available, don't waste time trying to read something. */ if (chars_avail <= 0) @@ -305,6 +315,13 @@ _rl_input_available () #endif +#if defined (__MINGW32__) + /* We use getch to read console input, so use the same + mechanism to check for more. Otherwise, we don't know. */ + if (isatty (fileno (rl_instream))) + return _kbhit (); +#endif + return 0; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-04-01 9:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-01 14:19 ` Tom Tromey @ 2011-04-02 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-04-02 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:30:03 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I only paid attention to DJGPP/MSDOS-specific patches and to MinGW-specific > patches, because Jan seemed to have covered the rest. I hadn't yet, I have done so now. I have checked the remaining changes and these (mostly minor) patches should be applied on top of readline-6.2: [Bug-readline] [RFC/readline] bind.c, rl_function_dumper, Free allocated http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-03/msg00000.html [Bug-readline] Unused support/wcwidth.c http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00000.html [Bug-readline] [patch] Fix underquotation in readline/examples/rlfe/conf http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00001.html [Bug-readline] [patch] Makefile.in htm<->html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00002.html Re: [Bug-readline] [patch] Makefile.in dependency: callback.o: xmalloc.h http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00004.html [Bug-readline] [patch] Remove . from the VPATH directive http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00005.html Together with the sourceware-specific changes which are not suitable for upstream readline, provided below. And together with the changes as found by Eli. So I believe it is ready for a rebase after the 7.3 branching. I haven't commented here the diff parts which I have found already present in readline-6.2, I can do so upon request. The 5.1patched -> 6.2 change should be done probably by a single commit - and not as 6.2 pristine + the several changes below - as otherwise there would be a local build regression which complicates git bisect. Thanks, Jan This ChangeLog should not go anywhere, these entries are already present in readline/ChangeLog.gdb. commit fe454715791b86ad488b33c1f325478803c8108c - import gdb-19990422 snapshot 1999-04-22 Jason Molenda <jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com> * Makefile.in (install): Make comment about this change more explicit. 1999-04-22 Jason Molenda <jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com> * Makefile.in (install): Don't install the final libreadline.a or .h files. commit 47add2a0e5b7e970014e000ac1a3a1cc42c31798 2009-08-22 Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> * configure.in: m4_include toplevel config/override.m4. * configure: Regenerate. commit 14cd51f7793a9ce07bc435069f57269450141363 - Initial revision - unaware where that AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR change came from. commit 1809460e45c24a51bcbac82243cad09117cd43c5 2002-12-16 Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> * configure.in: Remove --enable-shared option. It shouldn't be used for gdb. * configure: Regenerate. commit 14cd51f7793a9ce07bc435069f57269450141363 - Initial revision Tue Dec 29 18:11:28 1998 Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@kwikemart.cygnus.com> * cross-build/cygwin.cache: new file. Used for Cygwin cross builds. --- readline-6.2-orig/Makefile.in 2010-10-11 17:53:52.000000000 +0200 +++ readline-6.2/Makefile.in 2011-04-02 21:22:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -211,7 +211,17 @@ examples: force force: -install: $(INSTALL_TARGETS) +## GDB LOCAL +## Don't mess with people's installed readline's. +## This tries to install this version of readline over whatever +## version is already installed on the system (which could be a +## newer version). There is no real reason for us to install +## readline along with GDB. GDB links statically against readline, +## so it doesn't depend on us installing it on the system. + +install: + +#install: $(INSTALL_TARGETS) install-headers: installdirs ${INSTALLED_HEADERS} for f in ${INSTALLED_HEADERS}; do \ --- readline-6.2-orig/examples/rlfe/configure.in 2006-11-09 16:51:12.000000000 +0100 +++ readline-6.2/examples/rlfe/configure.in 2011-04-02 21:22:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script. +m4_include([../../../config/override.m4]) + AC_INIT(rlfe.c) AC_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h) VERSION=0.4 --- readline-6.2-orig/configure.in 2010-11-14 23:41:48.000000000 +0100 +++ readline-6.2/configure.in 2011-04-02 21:23:07.000000000 +0200 @@ -22,13 +22,17 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to p AC_REVISION([for Readline 6.2, version 2.67]) +m4_include([../config/override.m4]) + AC_INIT(readline, 6.2, bug-readline@gnu.org) dnl make sure we are using a recent autoconf version AC_PREREQ(2.50) AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR(readline.h) -AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(./support) +dnl GDB LOCAL +dnl AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(./support) +AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(`cd $srcdir;pwd`/..) AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h) dnl update the value of RL_READLINE_VERSION in readline.h when this changes @@ -57,10 +61,10 @@ fi dnl option parsing for optional features opt_multibyte=yes opt_static_libs=yes -opt_shared_libs=yes +opt_shared_libs=no AC_ARG_ENABLE(multibyte, AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-multibyte], [enable multibyte characters if OS supports them]), opt_multibyte=$enableval) -AC_ARG_ENABLE(shared, AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-shared], [build shared libraries [[default=YES]]]), opt_shared_libs=$enableval) +dnl AC_ARG_ENABLE(shared, AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-shared], [build shared libraries [[default=YES]]]), opt_shared_libs=$enableval) AC_ARG_ENABLE(static, AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-static], [build static libraries [[default=YES]]]), opt_static_libs=$enableval) if test $opt_multibyte = no; then --- readline-6.2-orig/cross-build/cygwin.cache 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ readline-6.2/cross-build/cygwin.cache 2011-04-02 21:22:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +# This file is a shell script that caches the results of configure +# tests for CYGWIN32 so they don't need to be done when cross-compiling. + +# AC_FUNC_GETPGRP should also define GETPGRP_VOID +ac_cv_func_getpgrp_void=${ac_cv_func_getpgrp_void='yes'} +# AC_FUNC_SETVBUF_REVERSED should not define anything else +ac_cv_func_setvbuf_reversed=${ac_cv_func_setvbuf_reversed='no'} +# on CYGWIN32, system calls do not restart +ac_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls=${ac_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls='no'} +bash_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls=${bash_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls='no'} + +# these may be necessary, but they are currently commented out +#ac_cv_c_bigendian=${ac_cv_c_bigendian='no'} +ac_cv_sizeof_char_p=${ac_cv_sizeof_char_p='4'} +ac_cv_sizeof_int=${ac_cv_sizeof_int='4'} +ac_cv_sizeof_long=${ac_cv_sizeof_long='4'} + +bash_cv_dup2_broken=${bash_cv_dup2_broken='no'} +bash_cv_pgrp_pipe=${bash_cv_pgrp_pipe='no'} +bash_cv_type_rlimit=${bash_cv_type_rlimit='long'} +bash_cv_decl_under_sys_siglist=${bash_cv_decl_under_sys_siglist='no'} +bash_cv_under_sys_siglist=${bash_cv_under_sys_siglist='no'} +bash_cv_sys_siglist=${bash_cv_sys_siglist='no'} +bash_cv_opendir_not_robust=${bash_cv_opendir_not_robust='no'} +bash_cv_getenv_redef=${bash_cv_getenv_redef='yes'} +bash_cv_printf_declared=${bash_cv_printf_declared='yes'} +bash_cv_ulimit_maxfds=${bash_cv_ulimit_maxfds='no'} +bash_cv_getcwd_calls_popen=${bash_cv_getcwd_calls_popen='no'} +bash_cv_must_reinstall_sighandlers=${bash_cv_must_reinstall_sighandlers='no'} +bash_cv_job_control_missing=${bash_cv_job_control_missing='present'} +bash_cv_sys_named_pipes=${bash_cv_sys_named_pipes='missing'} +bash_cv_func_sigsetjmp=${bash_cv_func_sigsetjmp='present'} +bash_cv_mail_dir=${bash_cv_mail_dir='unknown'} +bash_cv_func_strcoll_broken=${bash_cv_func_strcoll_broken='no'} +bash_cv_have_mbstate_t=${bash_cv_have_mbstate_t='yes'} + +bash_cv_type_int32_t=${bash_cv_type_int32_t='int'} +bash_cv_type_u_int32_t=${bash_cv_type_u_int32_t='int'} +ac_cv_header_termcap_h=${ac_cv_header_termcap_h='yes'} +ac_cv_header_termios_h=${ac_cv_header_termios_h='yes'} +bash_cv_termcap_lib=${bash_cv_termcap_lib='-ltermcap'} + +bash_cv_tiocgwinsz_in_ioctl=${bash_cv_tiocgwinsz_in_ioctl='yes'} +ac_cv_lib_termcap_tgetent=${ac_cv_lib_termcap_tgetent='yes'} + +# end of cross-build/cygwin32.cache ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-03-22 20:04 ` Tom Tromey 2011-04-01 9:25 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 20:36 ` Joel Brobecker 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2011-03-22 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, gdb, ktietz, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes: Jan> I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on Jan> ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz Jan> vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches Jan> with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. I think you can see the full diff of 5.1 -vs- src using: cd src/readline cvs diff -rreadline_5_1 -rHEAD At least, readline_5_1 seems to be the import tag. Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 20:04 ` Tom Tromey @ 2011-04-01 9:25 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2011-04-01 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: jan.kratochvil, gdb, ktietz > From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, > cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:03:51 -0600 > > I think you can see the full diff of 5.1 -vs- src using: > > cd src/readline > cvs diff -rreadline_5_1 -rHEAD > > At least, readline_5_1 seems to be the import tag. Thanks, that was very useful. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 20:04 ` Tom Tromey @ 2011-03-22 20:36 ` Joel Brobecker 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-03-22 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, gdb, ktietz, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please > > Can you show these patches in full? > > I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on > ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz > vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches > with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. I think we've been very careful to make sure we get approval upstream in readline before checking in patches locally. So the number of local changes not present upstream should indeed be very small. -- Joel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-25 16:05 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-22 15:43 readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 16:43 ` Joel Brobecker 2011-03-22 16:58 ` Tom Tromey 2011-03-22 17:19 ` Kai Tietz 2011-03-22 19:05 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 19:48 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 19:59 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-01 9:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-01 14:19 ` Tom Tromey 2011-04-02 10:29 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-03 3:01 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-04-25 16:05 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-04-02 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil 2011-03-22 20:04 ` Tom Tromey 2011-04-01 9:25 ` Eli Zaretskii 2011-03-22 20:36 ` Joel Brobecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox