Birgi Tamersoy, 08.12.2008:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I fixed this problem with a simple patch. I also had to add something to
> the Makefile. I decided to separate the Vim source tree patches related
> to CodeCheck from the direct code_check.c patches. That is why I am
> attaching two files. Please let me know if this is not a good idea, or
> there is another common way of doing it. I will fix it accordingly.
What's the benefit from splitting up the patch?
Yet some comments. After discussion I will include the fixes.
> +++ code_check.c 2008-12-08 10:59:10.000000000 -0600
> @@ -361,7 +363,9 @@
> */
> void
> cc_update_screen(void) {
> +#ifdef FEAT_GUI
> if (!gui.in_use) {
> +#endif
> /* in console mode updating the screen from the worker thread
> * does not cause any problems. */
> update_topline();
> @@ -370,6 +374,7 @@
> setcursor();
> cursor_on();
> out_flush();
> +#ifdef FEAT_GUI
> } else {
> /* updating the screen in gui mode is troublesome. */
> char_u bytes[3];
> @@ -380,6 +385,7 @@
>
> add_to_input_buf(bytes, 3);
> }
> +#endif
> }
>
> /*
Why not interchanging the "then" and "else" path?
> +++ Makefile 2008-12-08 11:45:56.000000000 -0600
> @@ -1363,6 +1363,9 @@
>
> TAGS_INCL = *.h
>
> +# CodeCheck requires the pthreads library.
> +EXTRA_LIBS = -lpthread
> +
> BASIC_SRC = \
> buffer.c \
> charset.c \
Is this needed? It already linked and worked without it. And doesn't
this break linking on systems without pthread?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
