Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <8F23E55D511AD5119A6800D0B76FDDE11E100E@cpex3.channelpoint.com> From: Troy Noble To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" Subject: RE: Brainstorming a fix for CTRL-C handling in an emacs shell buf fer (non-TTY) Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:19:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0 (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/) So where would you recommend we go from here? Maybe looking into the TTY code, and figuring out why it doesn't like the way Emacs is opening the pipe to stdin on cygwin processes? I did try mucking with the Emacs comint.el file to change the TERM setting to "ansi" and "vt100", neither worked. I also tried using tic to create an "emacs" terminfo entry similar to "dumb" or "ansi" or "vt100". All to no avail. I'm willing to help out testing or investigating further, as I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. Now that I know the root of the problem, it feels like I'm much closer to a working solution. Or am I better off just patching the DLL each time it is released? That seems like a waste though, since nobody else will be able to take advantage of the fix. Open to suggestions. Thanks, Troy -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:26 AM To: 'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com' Subject: Re: Brainstorming a fix for CTRL-C handling in an emacs shell buf fer (non-TTY) On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:36:18AM -0600, Troy Noble wrote: >Christopher, > >I tried the latest winsup sources out of CVS this morning >(ran cvs checkout at approx 5/5/2000 8:35AM MDT) > >I am still seeing the CTRL-C problem when running bash or ash >inside emacs shell buffer. The patch I sent yesterday does >fix it even in this latest code. > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-05/msg00261.html > >So would you entertain adding the new CYGWIN= option? No. It is not a CYGWIN option type of fix. We have enough CYGWIN options. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple