Re: running ./temacs

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 02:36:38 -0400
>> 
>> It looks like this is enough to get ./temacs run in X11 mode:
>> 
>> === modified file 'src/dispnew.c'
>> --- src/dispnew.c 2011-05-25 03:45:04 +0000
>> +++ src/dispnew.c 2011-05-31 06:17:37 +0000
>> @@ -6235,9 +6235,6 @@ init_display (void)
>>      }
>>  
>>    if (!inhibit_window_system && display_arg
>> -#ifndef CANNOT_DUMP
>> -     && initialized
>> -#endif
>>       )
>>      {
>>        Vinitial_window_system = Qx;
>> 
>> === modified file 'src/frame.c'
>> --- src/frame.c   2011-05-29 00:45:00 +0000
>> +++ src/frame.c   2011-05-31 06:13:37 +0000
>> @@ -544,10 +544,8 @@ make_initial_frame (void)
>>    /* The default value of menu-bar-mode is t.  */
>>    set_menu_bar_lines (f, make_number (1), Qnil);
>>  
>> -#ifdef CANNOT_DUMP
>>    if (!noninteractive)
>>      init_frame_faces (f);
>> -#endif
>>  
>>    return f;
>>  }
>> 
>> Any reason not to check this in?
>
> What would be the purpose of getting temacs run in GUI mode?

Minimize the differences between temacs and emacs.  Other than dumping,
is it useful to have temacs and emacs behave differently?

Hopefully temacs should be much easier to get to work under valgrind
(and other similar tools) for example.
Another use would be for cross-compiling.  One can cross-compile temacs,
but if the result behave differently, it's not very useful.  If it
behaved the same, it would start up slower, but it would otherwise work
just the same as emacs.