From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from conssluserg-06.nifty.com (conssluserg-06.nifty.com [210.131.2.91]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E743A385E830 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:56:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E743A385E830 Received: from Express5800-S70 (v038192.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [124.155.38.192]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-06.nifty.com with ESMTP id 04MEuVCh002772 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 23:56:31 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com 04MEuVCh002772 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [124.155.38.192] Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 23:56:32 +0900 From: Takashi Yano To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: mintty 3.1.6 Message-Id: <20200522235632.16c7c562d74050b8f1e7c705@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20200522225405.f8369e7698766d8633ba87de@nifty.ne.jp> References: <20200522182257.068752a1be64dd35f85920ba@nifty.ne.jp> <769b26a3-51a8-0d2c-871f-fd5e6bf793eb@towo.net> <20200522200131.e76be21d39ad5d7b836c843a@nifty.ne.jp> <20200522215800.8bedb2907eacbf1881102793@nifty.ne.jp> <20200522225405.f8369e7698766d8633ba87de@nifty.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:56:53 -0000 On Fri, 22 May 2020 22:54:05 +0900 Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2020 21:58:00 +0900 > Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 20:01:31 +0900 > > Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 12:14:43 +0200 > > > Thomas Wolff wrote: > > > > Hi Takashi, > > > > > > > > Am 22.05.2020 um 11:22 schrieb Takashi Yano via Cygwin: > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 19:41:27 +0200 > > > > > Thomas Wolff wrote: > > > > >> I have uploaded mintty 3.1.6 with the following changes: > > > > >> > > > > >> Window handling > > > > >>   * Fixed resource leak when displaying images (#995). > > > > >>   * Fixed crash condition on keyboard auto-repeat (#996). (Apologies > > > > >> for this one.) > > > > >> > > > > >> The homepage is at http://mintty.github.io/ > > > > >> It also links to the issue tracker. > > > > > After v3.1.5, the key repeat rate becomes almost halfened. > > > > > Is this behaviour by design? > > > > > > > > > > The key repeat rate is about 30 chars/sec in v3.1.4, but > > > > > it is 15 chars/sec in v3.1.5 and v3.1.6. > > > > > > > > > > It is little bit flustrating in editor cursor movement. > > > > > > > > > I've uploaded a commit: keyboard auto-repeat handling is now unaffected > > > > by default > > > > Explanation: the new auto-repeat rate limitation with a maximum of 30 > > > > cps (following the DECARR sequence of VT520) was effectively slowing > > > > down keyboards; I had the impression 30 would be enough... sorry > > > > > > I also think 30 cps would be enough, however, the key repeat rate > > > is not as setting by ESC[n-p sequence. Measured results in v3.1.6 > > > are as follows. Actual key repeat rate does not increase linearly. > > > > > > ^[[1-p : 1 cps > > > ^[[2-p : 2 cps > > > ^[[3-p : 3 cps > > > ^[[5-p : 4.7cps > > > ^[[10-p : 8.2cps > > > ^[[20-p : 14.8cps > > > ^[[30-p : 16.3cps > > > > Revising code in wininput.c as follows resolve this problem. > > > > static LONG last_key_time = 0; > > static LONG last_message_time = 0; > > > > LONG message_time = GetMessageTime(); > > LONG last_key_time_new = message_time; > > if (repeat) { > > #ifdef auto_repeat_cursor_keys_option > > switch (key) { > > when VK_PRIOR ... VK_DOWN: do not return...; > > } > > #endif > > if (!term.auto_repeat) > > return true; > > if (message_time - last_message_time < 2*1000/term.repeat_rate) > > /* Key repeat seems to be continued. */ > > last_key_time_new = last_key_time + 1000/term.repeat_rate; > > last_message_time = message_time; > > if (message_time - last_key_time < 1000/term.repeat_rate) > > return true; > > } > > last_key_time = last_key_time_new; > > > > ^[[1-p : 1 cps > > ^[[2-p : 2 cps > > ^[[3-p : 3 cps > > ^[[5-p : 5 cps > > ^[[10-p : 9.7cps > > ^[[20-p : 19.4cps > > ^[[30-p : 29.0cps > > The simplified following code also work as expected. > Protection for division by 0 is added as well. > > static LONG last_key_time = 0; > > LONG message_time = GetMessageTime(); > if (repeat) { > #ifdef auto_repeat_cursor_keys_option > switch (key) { > when VK_PRIOR ... VK_DOWN: do not return...; > } > #endif > if (!term.auto_repeat) > return true; > if (term.repeat_rate && > message_time - last_key_time < 1000 / term.repeat_rate) > return true; > } > if (term.repeat_rate && > message_time - last_key_time < 2*1000 / term.repeat_rate) > /* Key repeat seems to be continued. */ > last_key_time += 1000 / term.repeat_rate; > else > last_key_time = message_time; Sorry again and again. After all, the code above doesn't work as expected. I would like to propose the code below. static LONG last_key_time = 0; LONG message_time = GetMessageTime(); if (repeat) { #ifdef auto_repeat_cursor_keys_option switch (key) { when VK_PRIOR ... VK_DOWN: do not return...; } #endif if (!term.auto_repeat) return true; if (term.repeat_rate && message_time - last_key_time < 1000 / term.repeat_rate) return true; } if (term.repeat_rate && repeat && message_time - last_key_time < 2*1000 / term.repeat_rate) /* Key repeat seems to be continued. */ last_key_time += 1000 / term.repeat_rate; else last_key_time = message_time; -- Takashi Yano