Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

keyb us after keyb no leads to wrong codepage #4398

Closed
2 tasks done
mobluse opened this issue Aug 1, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #5199
Closed
2 tasks done

keyb us after keyb no leads to wrong codepage #4398

mobluse opened this issue Aug 1, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #5199

Comments

@mobluse
Copy link

mobluse commented Aug 1, 2023

Describe the bug

If I give the command keyb no and then keyb us it is still code page 858 and not 437 as it says. It's OK if it stays on the same code page but now the information is misleading. Once you are in CP858 it's sometimes difficult to switch back even with keyb us 437.

Steps to reproduce the behaviour

  1. Start DOSBox-X
  2. Give the command: keyb no
  3. Give the command: keyb us
  4. Test using numeric keyboard with Num Lock: Alt+181 and Alt+224
  5. This types characters from CP858 (ÁÓ) and not CP437 (╡ ╡ and α α)

Expected behavior

It should have the codepage that is printed by the command. After keyb us it prints "Keyboard layout us loaded for codepage 437".

What operating system(s) this bug have occurred on?

Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye) aarch64

What version(s) of DOSBox-X have this bug?

2023.03.31 (64-bit SDL1) from Pi-Apps

Used configuration

No response

Output log

No response

Additional information

No response

Have you checked that no similar bug report(s) exist?

  • I have searched and didn't find any similar bug report.

Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines

  • I agree to follow the code of conduct and the contributing guidelines.
@mobluse mobluse added the bug label Aug 1, 2023
@maron2000
Copy link
Contributor

maron2000 commented Aug 1, 2023

Your said bug is already fixed by PR #4318.
You may want to build the latest code or wait for the next release.

command_000
command_001

@maron2000
Copy link
Contributor

This issue can be closed since the PR is now included in the current release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants