7:57 a.m.
do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky(a)gmail.com>
---
src/lib.cpp | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/lib.cpp b/src/lib.cpp
index 77e49a2..ddb0b5c 100644
--- a/src/lib.cpp
+++ b/src/lib.cpp
@@ -436,12 +436,16 @@ void process_directory(const char *d_name, callback fn)
int get_user_input(char *buf, unsigned sz)
{
+ int ret = 0;
+#ifndef DISABLE_NCURSES
fflush(stdout);
echo();
/* Upon successful completion, these functions return OK. Otherwise, they return ERR.
*/
- int ret = getnstr(buf, sz);
+ ret = getnstr(buf, sz);
noecho();
fflush(stdout);
/* to distinguish between getnstr error and empty line */
- return ret || strlen(buf);
+ ret |= strlen(buf);
+#endif
+ return ret;
}
10:40 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 8/19/2012 2:57 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
no offence.. but this ifdef madness needs to stop.
right now, powertop uses ncurses.
either we want to make it optional, but then this stuff needs to get a lot more modular,
or we just declare that you need ncurses.
I'm very much leaning towards the later fwiw...
7:49 p.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On (08/19/12 17:40), Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 8/19/2012 2:57 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
no offence.. but this ifdef madness needs to stop.
right now, powertop uses ncurses.
either we want to make it optional, but then this stuff needs to get a lot more modular,
or we just declare that you need ncurses.
I'm very much leaning towards the later fwiw...
I agree, and actually I don't like this patch (ifdef stuff also affects patches
I'm currently
working on). it's rather hard to tell how many people will be affected by #2 decision,
but we
can tell the number for #1 case.
DISABLE_NCURSES is not that nasty in overall, since it just disables some application
features,
comparing to, for example, DISABLE_TRYCATCH, which disables standard language features for
very
much non-obvious reason for someone with no embedded background.
that said, it'll be nice if we forbid DISABLE_NCURSES, but we'll still have ifdefs
in
code because of decisions different people made (like no ncurses in some distros or
incomplete/buggy
programming language support).
-ss
1:18 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 08/20/2012 02:49 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (08/19/12 17:40), Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 8/19/2012 2:57 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
> no offence.. but this ifdef madness needs to stop.
>
> right now, powertop uses ncurses.
>
> either we want to make it optional, but then this stuff needs to get a lot more
modular,
> or we just declare that you need ncurses.
> I'm very much leaning towards the later fwiw...
>
I agree, and actually I don't like this patch (ifdef stuff also affects patches
I'm currently
working on). it's rather hard to tell how many people will be affected by #2
decision, but we
can tell the number for #1 case.
DISABLE_NCURSES is not that nasty in overall, since it just disables some application
features,
comparing to, for example, DISABLE_TRYCATCH, which disables standard language features
for very
much non-obvious reason for someone with no embedded background.
that said, it'll be nice if we forbid DISABLE_NCURSES, but we'll still have
ifdefs in
code because of decisions different people made (like no ncurses in some distros or
incomplete/buggy
programming language support).
-ss
The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to
support android. If we don't want to support android out of the box, we
can start removing the crude and android can patch PowerTOP within their
distro if they wanted.
All other ifdef's need to be scrutinized.
-C
_______________________________________________
PowerTop mailing list
PowerTop(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/powertop
1:21 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 8/20/2012 8:18 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
> -ss
The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to support android. If
we don't want to support android out of the box, we can start removing the crude
and android can patch PowerTOP within their distro if they wanted.
..or for an android build one adds ncurses to the local android.. like libpci and libnl
are anyway
1:31 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On (08/20/12 08:18), Chris Ferron wrote:
>>right now, powertop uses ncurses.
>>
>>either we want to make it optional, but then this stuff needs to get a lot more
modular,
>>or we just declare that you need ncurses.
>>I'm very much leaning towards the later fwiw...
>>
>I agree, and actually I don't like this patch (ifdef stuff also affects patches
I'm currently
>working on). it's rather hard to tell how many people will be affected by #2
decision, but we
>can tell the number for #1 case.
>
>DISABLE_NCURSES is not that nasty in overall, since it just disables some application
features,
>comparing to, for example, DISABLE_TRYCATCH, which disables standard language
features for very
>much non-obvious reason for someone with no embedded background.
>
>that said, it'll be nice if we forbid DISABLE_NCURSES, but we'll still have
ifdefs in
>code because of decisions different people made (like no ncurses in some distros or
incomplete/buggy
>programming language support).
>
>
> -ss
The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to
support android. If we don't want to support android out of the box,
we can start removing the crude and android can patch PowerTOP within
their distro if they wanted.
All other ifdef's need to be scrutinized.
-C
as far as I concerned, android build require several defines:
-- DISABLE_NCURSES
-- DISABLE_TRYCATCH
-- DISABLE_I18N
-- perhaps, some more
/* patch series by John Mathew */
-ss
1:31 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 08/20/2012 08:21 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 8/20/2012 8:18 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
>> -ss
> The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to support
android. If we don't want to support android out of the box, we can start removing the
crude
> and android can patch PowerTOP within their distro if they wanted.
..or for an android build one adds ncurses to the local android.. like libpci and libnl
are anyway
Yep, another perfectly reasonable option. So lets make ncurses a hard
requirement and remove the ifdef's.
1:34 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 8/20/2012 8:31 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
On 08/20/2012 08:21 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 8:18 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
>
>>> -ss
>> The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to support
android. If we don't want to support android out of the box, we can start removing the
crude
>> and android can patch PowerTOP within their distro if they wanted.
>
> ..or for an android build one adds ncurses to the local android.. like libpci and
libnl are anyway
>
Yep, another perfectly reasonable option. So lets make ncurses a hard requirement and
remove the ifdef's.
it's already a runtime option anyway (with --html and co)
worst case, if someone really cannot stand this, they can contribute a mini
"stub" ncurses that we then
compile in for those people who can't cope. But that really should be a separate stub
(similar to how we
do the pevent lib), not a ton of ifdefs in code.
4:17 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On 08/20/2012 08:34 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 8/20/2012 8:31 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
> On 08/20/2012 08:21 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 8/20/2012 8:18 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
>>
>>>> -ss
>>> The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to support
android. If we don't want to support android out of the box, we can start removing the
crude
>>> and android can patch PowerTOP within their distro if they wanted.
>> ..or for an android build one adds ncurses to the local android.. like libpci and
libnl are anyway
>>
> Yep, another perfectly reasonable option. So lets make ncurses a hard requirement and
remove the ifdef's.
it's already a runtime option anyway (with --html and co)
worst case, if someone really cannot stand this, they can contribute a mini
"stub" ncurses that we then
compile in for those people who can't cope. But that really should be a separate stub
(similar to how we
do the pevent lib), not a ton of ifdefs in code.
Sergey good patch but it sounds like the ifdefs for ncurses and others
should go. I have fixed this, hopefully this also helps you out.
-C
5:39 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds
On (08/20/12 11:17), Chris Ferron wrote:
On 08/20/2012 08:34 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>On 8/20/2012 8:31 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
>>On 08/20/2012 08:21 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>On 8/20/2012 8:18 AM, Chris Ferron wrote:
>>>>The only reason we allowed DISABLE_NCURSES in the first place, was to
support android. If we don't want to support android out of the box, we can start
removing the crude
>>>>and android can patch PowerTOP within their distro if they wanted.
>>>..or for an android build one adds ncurses to the local android.. like libpci
and libnl are anyway
>>>
>>Yep, another perfectly reasonable option. So lets make ncurses a hard requirement
and remove the ifdef's.
>it's already a runtime option anyway (with --html and co)
>
>worst case, if someone really cannot stand this, they can contribute a mini
"stub" ncurses that we then
>compile in for those people who can't cope. But that really should be a separate
stub (similar to how we
>do the pevent lib), not a ton of ifdefs in code.
>
Sergey good patch but it sounds like the ifdefs for ncurses and
others should go. I have fixed this, hopefully this also helps you
out.
Good job! I'm happy that you washed away these ifdefs.
-ss
3681
days inactive
3682
days old
9 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Arjan van de Ven -
Chris Ferron -
Sergey Senozhatsky