From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16681 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 08:09:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (HELO sunsite.auc.dk) (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 08:09:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 19869 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2000 08:09:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13148 Received: (qmail 19862 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 08:09:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:09:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200011090809.JAA24586@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:58:13 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: read_poll Re: PATCH: Zpty cleanup (merge 13061 with 13116) Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Nov 8, 11:20am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } > } Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > } > However, that does not mean that the rest of the tests should be skipped > } > when select() returns 0. A return of 0 means the select() timed out, > } > which (apparently) might happen under Cygwin even if there actually are > } > characters available to be read. Peter/Andrej, is that the case? > } > } I don't know about Cygwin, but that blocking read (line 1381) is > } exactly the test I wanted to avoid. > > The read on line 1381 is *non-*blocking. Since polltty is now always zero > when called from zpty, the setblock_fd() call is made before the read() is > attempted. That was the patch I first committed which started me down the > road of merging in your changes. Ouch. Right, hadn't thought about the change to polltty. Sorry. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de