[PATCH] Cygwin: console: Ignore 0x00 on write().
Fri Feb 21 09:33:00 GMT 2020
On Feb 20 17:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 20 17:22, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > On 20.02.2020 17:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 20 23:49, Takashi Yano wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:22:45 +0100
> > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 20 23:13, Takashi Yano wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:44:59 +0100
> > > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > > > But, here's a question: Why do we move the cursor to the right at all?
> > > > > > > I assume this is compatible with legacy mode, right?
> > > > > > Hmm. This may be a bug of legacy console.
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character
> > > > > > says
> > > > > > (some terminals, however, incorrectly display it as space)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about ignoring NUL in legacy mode too?
> > > > > I'd like that, but this may be a problem in terms of backward
> > > > > compatibility. The behaviour is so old, it actually precedes even the
> > > > > import of Cygwin code into the original CVS repository, 20 years ago...
> > > > If so, can't we say it is the *specification* of TERM=cygwin
> > > > that NUL moves the cursor right?
> > > Good point. Yes, in that case it's "working as designed" and
> > > we just leave it as is. I push my patch.
> > See `man 5 terminfo`: if NUL does anything else than just padding, the
> > terminfo entry must contain a pad or npc entry, which it doesn't.
> > Trouble to be expected. I'd rather suggest to align the design with
> > applications' expectations.
> Is that the cygwin terminfo or the xterm terminfo you're talking about?
> In case of the cygwin terminfo, that would mean the cygwin terminal
> emulation behaves differently from the terminfo for ages. I guess
> you're right then, we should fix this in the cygwin terminal emulation
> to make sure it behaves as descibed in its terminfo.
> In case of the xterm terminfo, that would be no problem because my patch
> drops the cursor movement for NUL.
Yeah, never mind, I checked the cygwin terminfo entry myself.
I pushed a patch removing the cursor movement on NUL and added
a matching comment instead.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin-patches