From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict? Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:18:18 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200410052211.i95MBJxm023321@coolsville.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097021923 23566 80.91.229.6 (6 Oct 2004 00:18:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 06 02:18:33 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CEzVp-0006HO-00 for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:18:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEzcU-0006dv-Gc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:25:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CEzcN-0006dg-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:25:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CEzcN-0006dU-5T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:25:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEzcN-0006dR-1E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:25:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [206.47.199.163] (helo=simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CEzVa-0007Cu-1h; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:18:18 -0400 Original-Received: from empanada.home ([67.68.216.150]) by simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20041006001555.HHNX1635.simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@empanada.home>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:15:55 -0400 Original-Received: by empanada.home (Postfix, from userid 502) id 3227C312061; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: "Jan D." In-Reply-To: <200410052211.i95MBJxm023321@coolsville.localdomain> (Jan D.'s message of "Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:11:19 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (darwin) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27965 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27965 >> If /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield is non-zero and there's no setarch, we >> should just try anyway and see if it works. If it works correctly, great. >> If it doesn't work, there's little we can do anyway, so we can just output >> a message referring the user to PROBLEMS. > That would involve detetcting that the core dump from temacs is due > to exactly this problem. I think that is hard to do. Or do you suggest > that any temacs core dump should give a message about etc/PROBLEMS? We can output the message even if the build succeeds. I.e. just transform the current error into a warning. Or you could use "if the dump segfaults and /proc/../exec-shield is non-zero and we don't have a setarch, then echo 'The problem might be due to exec-shield, see PROBLEMS.'" >> Trying to predict whether it's going to work or not doesn't seem to make >> much sense here since it doesn't allow us to resolve any problem we can't >> solve otherwise. > It is so much better to get this message at configure time rather than > very late in the build stage. I don't see the big improvement here. We're talking about a case where Emacs's build fails. It should be rare and we want to know about those cases so we can fix them, so early or late detection is really not a big deal so long as the warning is clear and visible enough. Stefan