[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17
From: |
Daniel O'Connor |
Subject: |
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17 |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:12:15 +0930 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7 |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:09, Michael Albinus wrote:
> >> PS: which Tramp version do you use? 2.0.45?
> >
> > I use .44 as that is the latest I can see.
>
> I am lost. I have no idea how to debug this issue, and I cannot
> reproduce it locally. Have you tried Tramp 2.1? It doesn't include
> that statement ...
Oops, so that's the latest version ;)
I tried 2.1.2 but tramp-smb.el still causes the memory gobbling :(
Commenting out the eval-when-compile stuff has no effect though, so it's even
worse than 2.0.44 :(
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
pgpZHq0NWxgbq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/12
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/12
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17,
Daniel O'Connor <=
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/18