"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An actual patch would be a lot clearer than that. > Writing one might be trivial for one who knows what to do, > but it isn't trivial for someone like me who doesn't know.
I'm afraid this really emphasizes that unexec isn't maintainable, even for use with the GNU tools. (See TODO.) > Is there someone else who knows what change is needed? Presumably anyone who's had to fix unexelf.c. I'm sure schwab could sort it out, though he won't be interested in Irix. However, he might comment on those sections and the others I listed that gcc might generate on platforms of interest in the future. Can't you get a binutils guru to comment on unexec? (I think unexec is also used by SCM, Guile and GCL amongst GNU programs.) Someone can surely turn on conservative stack scanning for Irix 6.5 anyway. > (Is this change needed in the current development sources, Yes. > or was it only needed in Emacs 21? I think he said this problem > did not occur in the development sources; Maybe you mean a failure on Solaris 10 -- that's different. > I'm sorry to hear that you will be out of work, but maybe it would > enable you to write additional Emacs features. I hope we will > be ready to install some in a couple of months. Thanks, but I doubt anyone wants to hire Emacs hackers, and I don't just want more stuff installed. I'd rather have what's been there for years in a stable Emacs `distributed in the hope that it will be useful', and I wish there was some prospect of that. (I hope it's not too unusual to contribute just to DTRT, notwithstanding ESR.) _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
