- Echo back print is distorted when the cygwin program which calls
Win32 console API directly calls slave read(). This patch fixes
the issue.
---
winsup/cygwin/fhandler.h | 3 ++-
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 51 ---
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 2
- For pseudo console support, struct pipe_reply was changed in the
past, however, the initialization was not fixed.
---
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc b/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc
index 36b3341b1.
- Debug codes used in the early stage of pseudo console support are
removed. (Regarding ALWAYS_USE_PCON and USE_API_HOOK) Along with
this, the codes related to this change are organized.
---
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 81 ++-
winsup/cygwin/select.cc |
- This patch moves the definition of mask_switch_to_pcon() from
fhandler.h to fhandler_tty.cc.
---
winsup/cygwin/fhandler.h | 9 +
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 10 ++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/fhandler.h b/winsup/cygwin
- PTY has a problem that the key input, which is typed during
windows native app is running, disappear when it returns to shell.
(Problem 3 in https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2020-02/msg7.html)
This is beacuse pty has two input pipes, one is for cygwin apps
and the other one is for native
- PTY has a bug reported in:
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2020-02/msg00067.html.
This is the result of state mismatch between real pseudo console
attaching state and state variable. This patch fixes the issue.
---
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 16 ++--
winsup/cygwin/fork.cc
Takashi Yano (4):
Cygwin: pty: Define mask_switch_to_pcon_in() in fhandler_tty.cc.
Cygwin: pty: Avoid screen distortion on slave read.
Cygwin: pty: Remove debug codes and organize related codes.
Cygwin: pty: Add missing member initialization for struct pipe_reply.
winsup/cygwin/fhandler.h
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 23:53:11 +0900
Takashi Yano wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:03:30 +0100
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I'm inclined to release 3.1.3 next week. Is that ok with you or
> > do you anticipate more patches which should go into 3.1.3?
>
> Currently, I have two patches which are under