On 2/2/20 12:05 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 05:21:30PM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On 2/1/20 6:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 03:43:20PM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>> I seem to remember him saying that he always has to configure with >>>> --with-diagnostics-color=never, and the URLs are on top of that. >>>> But there was no configure option for that, which, given his explanation, >>>> made immediately sense to me. >>>> >>>> In the case of the xfce terminal, the color thing was always working fine, >>>> but beginning with last october, the warnings look just terrible. >>>> >>>> If that assumption turns out to be wrong, we can easily move that check >>>> from >>>> the auto_color to the auto_url code, or add more terminals which are >>>> of that kind. >>> >>> For me colors work just fine in screen, it really depends on which >>> terminals one is attaching the screen from. >>> URLs don't work, but show up exactly as if they were disabled, no visual nor >>> accoustic problems with those (and work fine in gnome-terminal which is >>> recent). >>> That said, my TERM is actually screen.xterm-256color rather than just screen >>> (and xterm-256color in gnome-terminal). >> >> Okay, thanks. That is a strong indication that there is no need >> to interfere with screen, which proves that any auto-disabling should >> have a very specific terminal detection logic. > > Jakub says that he tested with a recent gnome-terminal. That works, of > course. Mnay other terminals will not, and switching what terminal is > attached to your screen session will not work well either, as far as I > can tell. >
I understood his statement, that the URLs are stripped from the data stream by screen and are no longer visible, even if the terminal would support them i.e. you connect from a gnome-terminal. But work fine when the compiler runs natively in a gnome-terminal. Or does screen pass the URL escapes thru to any terminal wether or not the produce garbage? Bernd.
