From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hin-Tak Leung Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help,gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: emacs-19.34 segfaults when built with Xfree 4.3.0(glibc2.3.x,gcc 3.2) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:00:56 +0100 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <3EBFEF68.6050202@yahoo.co.uk> References: <3EBFB256.4000504@yahoo.co.uk> <3EBFC7DE.1000502@yahoo.co.uk> <3EBFDF38.3050201@yahoo.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052766402 11698 80.91.224.249 (12 May 2003 19:06:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:06:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: samuel@ma.hw.ac.uk Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 12 21:06:40 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19FIdE-00032W-00 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 21:06:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19FIbW-0000g7-01 for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 May 2003 15:04:54 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19FIay-0000Re-00 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2003 15:04:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19FIUn-0006YS-00 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2003 14:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp013.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.57]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19FISC-0004vz-00 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2003 14:55:16 -0400 Original-Received: from m518-mp1.cvx1-b.cam.dial.ntli.net (HELO yahoo.co.uk) (hintak?leung@62.253.150.6 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2003 18:55:13 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us Original-To: Thien-Thi Nguyen In-Reply-To: Original-cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:9617 gmane.emacs.bugs:5030 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:9617 (Sigh). I would have been a lot happier if one of you had replied with "get me a gdb back strace" than having to digress to lengthy philosphical discussion on reasons to use an older version, or resorting to foul languages. As I said, I would prefer a "yes" or "no" to the gdb debug question. It isn't to difficult to answer either: (1) "possibly, depending on how deep the problem is; can't promise" (2) "Sorry no, no eperience with gdb whatsoever" But you are trying to draw into philosophical discussion again. (I guess that's still better than the "get a f*cking life" or "cheeky f*cker" replies) I suppose the inclusion of MULE and breaking backward compatibility is the root cause - and my not wanting to use it. But this is somewhat irrelevant. Other people may have other reasons for wanting to run an old copy of emacs on current systems, and a solution may be useful to others. The preference to use cemacs versus MULE may be a very small minority, but I don't think the same can be said about emacs 19 versus emacs 21 in general. In a way, MULE has exactly the same strength and weakness as the general emacs "Swiss Army Knife" philosophy: it is useful for linguists who want to do a lot of languages within a single document, but it doesn't work particularly well for any one given language. And a 30MB MULE installation versus 50kB cemacs - a trimmed emacs 19 installation in parallel/addition to emacs 21 is only 10MB. If I had sounded impatient, I had not resort to verbal violence as some others did. Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > Hin-Tak Leung writes: > > So far neither you nor "supposedly helpful" samuel had even > suggested either gdb or strace. or trying to get a core > dump. > > it looks like you have stumbled upon this debugging approach on > your own, in any case, w/o needless prompting. that's good to > see! > > If you want my adaptability, I guess I would like to offer > a gdb back trace or something like that eventually, when > I get round to do it. Can you help debugging a gdb back trace? > > (I would really like a straight forward "yes" or "no", rather > than going into further philosophical discussions). > > well i would really like to say "yes" or "no" straight-forwardly > rather than having to debug your PR problems first, but all i > can offer at this time are these questions: (1) how can anyone > definitively answer anything on something you have not yet > revealed? (2) what is the root cause of any problem besides > philosophical misalignment of some sort? > > thi >