[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Mar 2017 03:46:17 -0500 |
On Mar 4, 2017, at 09:23, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Also, it looks like the logic in startup.el that should bypass certain
>>> stuff under -Q isn't working, because I see my abbrevs being loaded
>>> even though I invoked "emacs -Q". Thoughts?
>>
>> Strange… this is also working for me. At least, settings from my .emacs
>> aren’t being applied, when I use “emacs -Q”.
>
> This problem is still there. It has nothing to do with loading
> ~/.emacs, though: startup.el always loads your ~/.emacs.d/abbrev_defs,
> if that file exists. I'm not sure why it loads that file, but I
> verified that the master version does that as well.
Odd, seems like -Q should skip that, with the rest of the user’s
initializations.
>
> So the issue here is not that the file is loaded, but how it is
> processed. I only noticed this because my abbrev_defs file uses a
> function that is only defined in my .emacs. So "emacs -Q" on the
> raeburn-startup branch barfs because that function is not known.
> Strangely, "emacs -Q" on the master branch doesn't signal an error,
> and I don't even see Fsignal called if I set a breakpoint there. I
> don't (yet) understand why the different behavior.
>
> If you insert into your abbrev_defs file something that references a
> function which is not defined, do you see the same problem as I do?
I added a line:
(missing-function)
in between some define-abbrev-table invocations, and “emacs -Q” on master (2-3
weeks old) and raeburn-startup both complain about it for me.
> Btw, one thing that I saw while debugging is that purify-flag is set
> to t while running the startup code. This is because init_alloc_once
> is called during startup (previously, it was only called by temacs).
> I don't know if this is related to the issue (setting purify-flag to
> nil in Frecursive_edit didn't help), but I thought I'd bring it up,
> because maybe we need to set it to nil earlier.
I’ve been thinking that the branch should probably set CANNOT_DUMP
unconditionally. The behavior around pure storage and such under CANNOT_DUMP
is probably closer to what we want for the branch. But there’s at least one
bug in building with CANNOT_DUMP for macOS I’ve got to clear up first. As you
say, it may not be at all related to the problem you’re running into, though.
Ken
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/03/04
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file,
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Andreas Schwab, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Stefan Monnier, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Richard Stallman, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Stefan Monnier, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2017/03/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Stefan Monnier, 2017/03/12
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2017/03/13
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/03/26