From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Love Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 64-bit lossage Date: 17 Jul 2002 12:25:28 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200207021945.g62JjkK01982@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026905187 10801 127.0.0.1 (17 Jul 2002 11:26:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:26:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Umws-0002o6-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:26:26 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Un8G-0003XB-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Umwm-0007qY-00; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from albion.dl.ac.uk ([148.79.80.39]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Umw3-0007oj-00; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:25:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fx by albion.dl.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Umvx-00065H-00; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:25:29 +0100 Original-To: Andreas Schwab Original-Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5823 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5823 Andreas Schwab writes: > I'm running Emacs on ia64, no problems. So much for extrapolation... Can you test on GNU/Alpha, which might help to narrow it down? I don't have a dual-boot system to try. I assume there weren't any ia64-specific changes which should be made elsewhere.