Re: emacs-19.34 segfaults when built with Xfree 4.3.0(glibc2.3.x,gcc 3.2)

[Hin-Tak Leung]

(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 <hintak_leung@yahoo.co.uk> 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