Using undumped Emacs

Using undumped Emacs

[Greg]

I'm having a problem with colors while trying to use undumped Emacs on 
GNU/Linux

I do: ./temacs -l loadup

And at the end of loading of the Lisp code the screen gets black
all I see is a dark green "*scratch*" string on the mode-line.

If I do: ./temacs --batch -l loadup dump ; ./emacs
Colors are OK then...

What's going on? How can I fix it?
I want to use the undumped version.

Thanks in advance
Greg

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Greg <greg@nospam.org> writes:

> I do: ./temacs -l loadup

you can try:

TERM=vt100 ; ./temacs -l loadup

this is not optimal but if you are inclined, it makes further debugging
easier.  under vms, for example, i always specify "vt100" while running
undumped emacs.

anyway, who needs colors?  bg==fg is where it's at, man!

thi

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Greg]

Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> Greg <greg@nospam.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>I do: ./temacs -l loadup
> 
> 
> you can try:
> 
> TERM=vt100 ; ./temacs -l loadup
> 
> this is not optimal but if you are inclined, it makes further debugging
> easier.  under vms, for example, i always specify "vt100" while running
> undumped emacs.

That works, thank you ;)

> 
> anyway, who needs colors?  bg==fg is where it's at, man!

I know that bg==fg...
It's puzzling to me why that happens with undumped emacs,
and dumped emacs doesn't need TERM=vt100.

The Emacs docs or FAQ don't say anything about the problem.

Greg




> thi

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Greg <greg@nospam.org> writes:

> It's puzzling to me why that happens with undumped emacs,
> and dumped emacs doesn't need TERM=vt100.
>
> The Emacs docs or FAQ don't say anything about the problem.

perhaps we should start a node on emacswiki re playing w/
undumped emacs.  probably there is no faq because there are
few to no questions on the topic, a large majority of the
people preferring to use emacs "normally".

these days emacs development is more-or-less transparent
(anoncvs access available), so i would expect the norms of
its usage to expand as well.  welcome to the bleeding edge!

re terminal init: i could spew on about this for a bit, but
will refrain for now, and save it for emacswiki.  maybe there
is already such a node; i haven't checked recently.

thi

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Greg <greg@nospam.org>
> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:35:15 +0100
> 
> It's puzzling to me why that happens with undumped emacs,
> and dumped emacs doesn't need TERM=vt100.

The Emacs initialization code does different things depending on
whether it is running in a dumped or undumped binary.  (If you want
the details, search the source code for `if' clauses that test the
global variable `initialized'.)

> The Emacs docs or FAQ don't say anything about the problem.

The FAQ is not a place for _every_ question one could possibly come up
with, it's only for _frequently_asked_ questions.

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[rgb]

> > The Emacs docs or FAQ don't say anything about the problem.
>
> The FAQ is not a place for _every_ question one could possibly come
> up with, it's only for _frequently_asked_ questions.

I see the word `docs' in the OP sentence.  Are you implying that the
goal of both sources have equal aspirations?  If not, why do you
single out faq?

One might expect that a user read docs & faq.  Are you saying that
one of them actually points a reader to the answer or do you just
feel the subject is too essoteric to expect some reference to an
answer anywhere.  Not even one pointing to code.

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[David Combs]

In article <7ezmy1bh71.fsf@ada2.unipv.it>,
Thien-Thi Nguyen  <ttn@glug.org> wrote:
>Greg <greg@nospam.org> writes:
>
>> I do: ./temacs -l loadup
>
>you can try:
>
>TERM=vt100 ; ./temacs -l loadup
>
>this is not optimal but if you are inclined, it makes further debugging
>easier.  under vms, for example, i always specify "vt100" while running
>undumped emacs.

What is an "umdumped" emacs?

Thanks,

David

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Dhruva Krishnamurthy]

>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 02:04:28 +0000 (UTC), dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs) said:

dc> In article <7ezmy1bh71.fsf@ada2.unipv.it>,
dc> Thien-Thi Nguyen  <ttn@glug.org> wrote:
>> Greg <greg@nospam.org> writes:
>> 
>>> I do: ./temacs -l loadup
>> 
>> you can try:
>> 
>> TERM=vt100 ; ./temacs -l loadup
>> 
>> this is not optimal but if you are inclined, it makes further debugging
>> easier.  under vms, for example, i always specify "vt100" while running
>> undumped emacs.

dc> What is an "umdumped" emacs?

I am making an attempt to explain one of the most complex part in emacs build,
I request the emacs gurus to correct me if I am wrong.

I am assuming that you have not built emacs from sources.

When you build emacs from source, it first makes a bare emacs binary with out
any lisp code loaded or embedded in it. You might be aware that pure emacs
with no elisp code is dumb in terms of an editor or a useful application.

The next phase in the build it to run this raw or pure or undumped emacs
called temacs (.exe on Win32 platform) by loading the elisp files which are
absolutely necessary using the "-l loadup" option. There is a "loadup.el"
which has all the other lisp code that needs to be loaded to get a
useful/working emacs. When this happens, the running temacs process will load
all the required elisp code.

The final phase is to dump that memory contents of temacs with elisp code
loaded into another executable called "emacs" (.exe on Win32). This new
executable will have all the necessary elisp code in the executable and hence
will be much faster at startup than running "./temacs -loadup". This phase of
dumping the temacs process into an emacs executable is _most_ system
dependent. XEmacs has done some progress in generalizing this concept.

I hope I have conveyed the facts (this is to the best of my knowledge).

-dhruva

-- 
Name : Dhruva Krishnamurthy (dk)
Phone: +91-(0)80-22999190
Proud FSF member: #1935

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs) writes:

> What is an "umdumped" emacs?

Dhruva Krishnamurthy has explained what "dumped" means, so i just
emphasize that "un" in this context is more suitably thought of as
"not-yet".  the following analogy does not hold:

  do : undo :: dump : undump

however, the following does:

  done : undone :: dumped : undumped

of course, if you're a monkey on the tree, "reverse undo" may make
sense after all (when upside down ;-), so apologies to all monkeys
on trees out there who may have been unintentionally unhinged by
this untroduction...

thi

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Stefan Monnier]

> I want to use the undumped version.

Just curious: why on earth would you want to do that?


        Stefan

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Greg]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>I want to use the undumped version.
> 
> 
> Just curious: why on earth would you want to do that?
> 
> 
>         Stefan

Just a whim ;) I wanted to play around with loadup.el,
and I thought it would be "cleaner" to use undumped Emacs for that.
I can do it very well with dumped Emacs, but since there is such another 
option I just wanted to use it...

Greg

Re: Using undumped Emacs

[Greg]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>I want to use the undumped version.
> 
> 
> Just curious: why on earth would you want to do that?
> 
> 
>         Stefan

Just a whim ;) I wanted to play around with loadup.el,
and I thought it would be "cleaner" to use undumped Emacs for that.
I can do it very well with dumped Emacs, but since there is another 
option I just wanted to use it...

Greg