Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:32:47 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-Id: <2561-Mon28Oct2002223246+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <5832744494.20021028211055@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas
	Biveinis on Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:10:55 +0200)
Subject: Re: GCC 3.2 building with 2.04 trouble on W2K (NTVDM crash)
References: <10210210510 DOT AA21415 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
 <75381002462 DOT 20021022170727 AT softhome DOT net>
 <39723724651 DOT 20021026161829 AT softhome DOT net>
 <1659-Sat26Oct2002170848+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
 <139735779174 DOT 20021026193923 AT softhome DOT net>
 <7458-Sun27Oct2002004757+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
 <5832744494 DOT 20021028211055 AT softhome DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:10:55 +0200
> From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> 
> I've tried getch() and scanf() to no avail, with or without clearing
> keyboard buffer in advance

Sorry, I don't understand: what does ``to no avail'' mean?  Did the
program somehow change its behavior when you added a call to `getch',
so that what failed before doesn't fail in the version with `getch'?