Mail Archives: djgpp/2009/04/02/14:45:04
Hi,
On Apr 2, 3:14=A0pm, Eli Zaretskii <e DOT DOT DOT AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
> > From: Rugxulo <rugx DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com>
> > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > P.S. It still claims an error when I try building with SYSTEM_MALLO=
C:
>
> > > I will look into it. =A0Please submit a bug report with
>
> > > =A0 =A0M-x report-emacs-bug RET
>
> > I don't think I can do that. =A0 :-) =A0 =A0In particular, it doesn't e=
ven
> > build with SYSTEM_MALLOC (and even if it did, it wouldn't be able to e-
> > mail them anyways (plus "root AT RUGXULO-PC" is bogus). But feel free to
> > forward it to them. =A0 ;-)
>
> I didn't know you didn't have any working Emacs at all. =A0Mail problems
> can be worked around by cut-pasting into some other mailer.
I still have the Win32 version (barebin) of 22.3 as well as the full
22.3 src + .elc package (which I used to build via DJGPP). I tried it
very very briefly a few months ago for like a day or two (ERC, mostly,
just out of boredom). I even tried on "good ol' " WinME (unofficially
unsupported by Emacs, ugh), but at the end, I (out of stubbornness and
pure rebellion ... well, and I think the machine crashed after a few
hours of chatting, lol) just downloaded (soon to be Win9x-unfriendly)
Cygwin and DJGPP + 22.3 srcs and built it there. (Gotta grab it before
it disappears and/or breaks!) But no, I want a DOS version more than a
Windows version, esp. for FreeDOS. Why not? If I don't need Win32-
specific features, I don't think it's a "bad thing".
> Anyway, you can simply send email to bug-gnu-em DOT DOT DOT AT gnu DOT org and
> describe the problem in your own words. =A0The bug tracker will catch
> the mail and create a bug report.
If I were really bored, I could use CWS's ED (NT version) with NNTP
support, but I'm not quite that adventurous! ;-) (Mostly I don't
grok networking, hence I avoid it whenever possible, e.g. using Google
Groups.) But okay, I'll try e-mailing them a bug report later.
> > It builds fine when *not* using --with-system-malloc
>
> Well, sure: that's what I do all the time ;-)
But the problem is that you can't check or fix bugs in the
SYSTEM_MALLOC build process that way. Even if XP does support
REL_ALLOC, 2k3 and Vista (and above) apparently don't. But, as you
said, it should still build and work in pure DOS, and REL_ALLOC is
more efficient, so I guess you highly prefer that. Still, supporting
both would be highly preferable if at all conveniently possible.
- Raw text -