[comp.emacs] Problem with uEmacs on VT102

maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) (03/09/88)

We're running the latest version of MicroEMACS on a VAX 780.  With most
terminals (VT100, VT52, etc.) it works as expected but, on VT102s, it
periodically thinks it has received CTRL-Ss from the keyboard when it
hasn't.  I deduce from this that VT100s and VT102s handle control-flow
handshaking differently, but I don't know enough about the specific
difference to produce a fix.  Any help would be much appreciated.


-- 
CSNet   : maner@research1.bgsu.edu               | CS Dept    419/372-2337
UUCP    : {cbatt,cbosgd}!osu-cis!bgsuvax!maner   | BGSU
Generic : maner%research1.bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net  | Bowling Green, OH 43403
Opinion : If you are married, you deserve a MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER weekend!

moore@UTKCS2.CS.UTK.EDU (Keith Moore) (03/10/88)

VT102s are slower than VT100s, so they require more padding.  VT100 termcap
entries don't work well with VT102s for this reason.  The result is that
the VT102 sends control-s in some situations where the VT100 will keep up.
The solution is to create a termcap entry for the VT102 with the correct
padding.  Unfortunately this isn't easy.  It takes a lot of experimentation 
to get it right.

I don't have my VT102 termcap entry anymore; else I'd include it here.
Perhaps someone else on the net could supply one.

Keith Moore
UT Computer Science Dept.	Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu
107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus	BITNET: moore@utkcs1
Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301

jr@LF-SERVER-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson) (03/10/88)

>> It takes a lot of experimentation 
>> to get it right.

People here eventually gave up (or maybe that was for the VT101?).

The problem was that the VT10? design requires just as much of the
processor to receive a padding character and throw it out as to get a
regular printing charactrer, so no amount of padding is enough.

Another choice is to give up and use flow control.

/jr
jr@bbn.com or jr@bbn.uucp