[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 22:02:25 +0930 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7 |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:50, Michael Albinus wrote:
> > 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 :(
>
> Strange strange strange.
ya :)
> Could you, please (setq debug-on-quit t) ? Then, byte-compile
> tramp-smb.el from within XEmacs, and interrupt it if it doesn't
> return. Maybe the backtrace gives some evidences ...
I didn't do this..
> Another idea: XEmacs 21.5.b17 crashes on my Debian host when loading
> Tramp. This is due to the coding scheme, declared in the first line of
> Tramp's *.el files. Maybe you remove these lines?
But this DID fix it(!)
Very weird :(
Any idea if this is a known XEmacs bug?
Maybe I should hassle them :)
--
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
pgpyxpXnna1yE.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, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- 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