From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: `print' does not print Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:49:25 +0200 (IST) Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <15520.45112.118124.712072@jupiter.akutech-local.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017208277 25216 127.0.0.1 (27 Mar 2002 05:51:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 05:51:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kaelbling , rms@gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16q6L6-0006Yb-00 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:51:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16q6L5-0004D9-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:51:15 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16q6KV-0004Bf-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:50:39 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA05957; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:49:25 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Ralf Fassel In-Reply-To: <15520.45112.118124.712072@jupiter.akutech-local.de> Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:219 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:219 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Ralf Fassel wrote: > * David Kaelbling > | > Great, so it seems that the SGI-specific patch in unexelf.c is > | > unnecessary and even dangerous, and should be taken out. > | > | It wouldn't surprise me, but is that really what Ralf said? > > I wasn't quite sure about that statement either. I could not > reproduce the problems the `.got' statements were meant to solve, but > I'm not sure that this means that they might go away. They might help > in a different environment (which I obviously not have, since emacs > works at my site w/o those statements). We need to try to identify the environment where the `.got' sections need the special treatment they now have in unexelf.c. Curiously enough, David's report was about Irix 6.5.14f and version 7.3.1.3m of development tools, so versions of Irix before 6.5.10 and version 7.2 of the compiler and the libraries seem to not be an issue in that case. > What I have found is that you need an upgraded IRIX version (at least > 6.5.10 it seems) to make these `.got' statements work with gcc > compilation. > > I also found that cc compilation seems to works in any case (21.1 and > 21.2, contrary to the comments in 21.2 unexelf.c that require the > `.got' sections). I was also under an impression that unexelf.c from Emacs 21.2 with the special .got sections treatment removed made `print' work, is that true?