From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacsclient 22 and 23 incompatibility Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:18:56 -0400 Message-ID: <7EDB7632-9A74-420D-AA98-48931020D382@raeburn.org> References: <40968C64-648B-4601-89EB-6197D65E5020@gmail.com> <87d47fby7n.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85545288-C7CC-49A9-8782-483C801D635F@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249165181 32229 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2009 22:19:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: CHENG Gao Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 02 00:19:34 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MXMvJ-00077h-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38353 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXMvI-0001o1-Lz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:19:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXMvD-0001nw-1w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:19:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXMv7-0001m0-RJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:19:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47309 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXMv7-0001lx-Nu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from splat.raeburn.org ([69.25.196.39]:53242 helo=raeburn.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MXMuz-0007W3-MZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.0.0.172] (squish.raeburn.org [10.0.0.172]) by raeburn.org (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n71MIudD016138; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:18:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113535 Archived-At: On Aug 1, 2009, at 15:58, CHENG Gao wrote: > Apple's original installation of emacs 22 has (in /usr/bin): > > ,---- > | -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 38544 2 6 2008 emacs > | -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 13072480 12 17 2008 emacs-i386 > | -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5301856 11 25 2008 emacs-undumped > `---- > Does this mean: > the first emacs is dumped? How could it be so small? % strings emacs /usr/libexec/dumpemacs Failed to dump emacs /usr/bin/emacs-i386 execv(%s) failed [...] So I'm thinking Apple's "emacs" program doesn't come out of the normal GNU Emacs build process (or sources) at all, but does its own thing, which may involved dumping after installation. If the dumped version is available as emacs-i386, then Apple's "emacs" will run it. (If you fire up emacs and run "ps", you'll see the process listed as "emacs", but if you run "lsof" on it, you'll see the text image comes from emacs-i386.) % file emacs-undumped emacs-i386 emacs-undumped: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures emacs-undumped (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386 emacs-undumped (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppc emacs-i386: Mach-O executable i386 % So "emacs-undumped" is probably a "universal" binary version of src/ temacs, which normally would never be installed, and "emacs-i386" is probably the dumped version, with only the native architecture support. Though, how it could still be so much larger than both the pre-dumped version (divided roughly in half, remember, for the i386 portion only) and the emacs-23 binaries you built, I don't know. Ken