Re: running ./temacs

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>> >>>>> [Hacking around this so that Vprocess_environment is initialized when
>>>> >>>>> not dumping makes ./temacs work correctly]
>>>> >>>> In case anyone wants to see the difference in behavior, here's the
>>>> >>>> ugly hack:
>>>> >>> Could you explain your code (i.e. why you need those strcmp hacks, why
>>>> >>> you need to set&unset initialized, ...)?
>>>> >> set_initial_environment only initializes Vprocess_environment if
>>>> >> `initialized' is set.
>>>> > Do you happen to know why?
>>>> No idea.  I'd speculate that it's undesirable to initialize it when
>>>> dumping...
>>> Yes, probably.
>>
>> So `initialized' is not the right variable to test.
>> Maybe Vpurify_flag would be closer since it is a better indicator of
>> whether we're about to dump or not, AFAIK.
>
> Vpurify_flag does not quite work. lread.c:init_obarray sets it
> unconditionally:
>
>   /* Qt is correct even if CANNOT_DUMP.  loadup.el will set to nil at end.  */
>   Vpurify_flag = Qt;
>
> I checked in a simplified version of this and of
> set_initial_environment.
> ./temacs runs now.  It starts up in -nw mode, but that's a different
> issue.  It would be great if someone could solve that one too...

It looks like this is enough to get ./temacs run in X11 mode:

=== modified file 'src/dispnew.c'
--- src/dispnew.c 2011-05-25 03:45:04 +0000
+++ src/dispnew.c 2011-05-31 06:17:37 +0000
@@ -6235,9 +6235,6 @@ init_display (void)
     }
 
   if (!inhibit_window_system && display_arg
-#ifndef CANNOT_DUMP
-     && initialized
-#endif
      )
     {
       Vinitial_window_system = Qx;

=== modified file 'src/frame.c'
--- src/frame.c   2011-05-29 00:45:00 +0000
+++ src/frame.c   2011-05-31 06:13:37 +0000
@@ -544,10 +544,8 @@ make_initial_frame (void)
   /* The default value of menu-bar-mode is t.  */
   set_menu_bar_lines (f, make_number (1), Qnil);
 
-#ifdef CANNOT_DUMP
   if (!noninteractive)
     init_frame_faces (f);
-#endif
 
   return f;
 }

Any reason not to check this in?