|Summary:||xterm displays DEL but it should instead ignore it|
|Product:||xorg||Reporter:||D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh>|
|Component:||App/xterm||Assignee:||Xorg Project Team <xorg-team>|
|Status:||RESOLVED FIXED||QA Contact:|
|Priority:||high||CC:||hugh, keithp, kem|
|i915 platform:||i915 features:|
|Bug Depends on:|
Description D. Hugh Redelmeier 2004-07-11 11:11:24 UTC
DEL is a control character that should be (essentially) ignored when written to a screen. This was the case for xterm until 2002 Dec 8 when T. Dickey changed the XFree86 version. This was a mistake, as evidenced by the fact that he has changed it back (at my prompting) recently (since the fork). The correct fix is to change the initialization of VTPrsTbl.c's ansi_table[0x7f] from CASE_PRINT to CASE_IGNORE. All the other tables defined in this file seem to have CASE_IGNORE for DEL. This change was independently derived by me.
Comment 1 D. Hugh Redelmeier 2004-07-11 11:15:03 UTC
test case: In a bash shell, running in the xterm to be tested, run echo -e 'X\177Y' This should display XY without any glyph or space between them.
Comment 2 Alexandru Fomin 2004-08-02 03:26:24 UTC
It is fixed upstream I think, in xterm patch #188: Patch #188 - 2004/5/12 - XFree86 18.104.22.168 * correct table entry for DEL in the ground state, which marked it as a printable character from patch #171 (report by D Hugh Redelmeier). (quote from Thomas E. Dickey site: http://dickey.his.com/xterm/xterm.log.html) Maybe would be a good ideea to update to latest xterm version (Patch #194 - 2004/7/27) for the upcoming release ..
Comment 3 Alexandru Fomin 2004-08-09 00:33:43 UTC
I'm marking this bug as blocking the next release, hopeing someone will look into it before the code freeze ... I know there are more important problems than this one, but I didn't knew other way to attract attention to it .. If you disagrea please undo my changes .. The last version of xterm (#195) can be get from Thomas E. Dickey website: <http://dickey.his.com/xterm/>
Comment 4 Keith Packard 2004-08-11 22:40:07 UTC
Thomas suggests we go with Xterm version 195 for our release. Can anyone manage to get this integrated?
Comment 5 Kristian Høgsberg 2004-08-12 05:01:40 UTC
I'll look into this.
Comment 6 Kristian Høgsberg 2004-08-12 09:44:24 UTC
So, a quick look at the xterm-195 gives 17000 lines of diff between the in-tree xterm and xterm-195. 5000 or so is in configure, but the rest is actual code changes. Do we want to merge this at this point?
Comment 7 Kevin E. Martin 2004-08-12 18:27:48 UTC
Keith Packard said that he talked with Thomas E. Dickey recently and would ask him if we could/should import his upstream work. Keith, have you had a chance to talk with him again?
Comment 8 Keith Packard 2004-08-12 18:54:07 UTC
Given that Thomas is the defacto xterm maintainer at this point, I suggest we just go with his current version (#195) which he indicated would suffice for our release. I believe most distributions package that separately in any case, making our inclusion somewhat redundant in any case.