Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed upstream #505 : spurious warning on adm5 terminal #506

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fstark
Copy link

@fstark fstark commented May 11, 2024

Fix for issue #505 ("Wrong warning when running on Lear Siegler ADM-5 terminal")

The cheaper function that compares two ways of using termcap sets missing_cap to 1 if both ways are unavailable. This function is used to choose between using "al" or "sr" ("add line" or "scroll reverse") to add a line at the top of the screen. None of those are available on an ADM5 terminal.

However, less already has support for terminal that lacks reverse scroll, and is correctly setting the no_back_scroll, making the warning wrong.

Source code already had a provision to avoid using cheaper if none of the capabilities were available, but it was only used for OS2. I enabled this for all builds. I don't see any potential for any regression.

gwsw added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2024
Fix for issue #505 ("Wrong warning when running on Lear Siegler ADM-5 terminal")

The cheaper function that compares two ways of using termcap sets missing_cap to 1 if both ways are unavailable. This function is used to choose between using "al" or "sr" ("add line" or "scroll reverse") to add a line at the top of the screen. None of those are available on an ADM5 terminal.

However, less already has support for terminal that lacks reverse scroll, and is correctly setting the no_back_scroll, making the warning wrong.

Source code already had a provision to avoid using cheaper if none of the capabilities were available, but it was only used for OS2. I enabled this for all builds. I don't see any potential for any regression.

Related to #505.
Manually merged from #506.
@gwsw
Copy link
Owner

gwsw commented Sep 9, 2024

Manually merged in deb4981.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants