Karl Kleinpaste <karl(a)justresearch.com&gt; wrote: If hand-editing was required, I would agree with you. However, hand-editing is NOT required. Note that the "hand-editing" is only required to use the profile-based optimization (which is really nice) of the unbundled compiler. You can still compile XEmacs with "-g" (or whatever) without having to do any hand-editing whatsoever (but with the unbundled compiler). It'll still compile, but the performance won't be as good as that from profile-based optimization. [ Note: for those people unfamiliar with it, profile-based optimization is a three step process: 1. Compile and dump XEmacs using special flags to add special optimization instrumentation code. 2. Run XEmacs. Use XEmacs in the way you normally do. You also want to exercise those parts of XEmacs which seem to run slowly. When you exit XEmacs, a special file containing profile data is dumped to disk. 3. Relink XEmacs using some more special flags, and redump. At this point, the compiler/linker will optimize the machine code using the profile data gathered in step #2 (I think HP's linker actually calls the compiler to recompile the modules at this stage). The resulting binary performs much better than if plain optimization was used. Because this method is a three-step process (instead of just one), this isn't well-suited for the normal "./configure" process; hand-editing of Makefiles is generally required. ] Granted, gcc is free and, well, ubiquitous. While I haven't done any benchmarks, I feel that using HP's profile-based optimization results in a faster XEmacs. I use (lazy) font-lock and setnu modes, and I want all the speed I can get. A co-worker uses VM, and VM is much more usable with large VM mail files if profile-based optimization is used. I guess you get what you pay for. OK, I just built the latest XEmacs 21.0-b62 "Pyrenean", under HP-UX 10.20 with the *unbundled* compiler. It was a very simple matter of running "configure" followed by "make". No muss, no fuss. Here is the configure line: ./configure --without-gcc \ --site-includes=/usr/local/include:/opt/audio/include \ --site-libraries=/usr/local/lib:/opt/audio/lib \ --with-site-lisp=yes \ --gung-ho=yes \ --verbose \ --cflags='-g +DAportable' \ --prefix=/opt/hp \ --with-xpm=yes \ --with-xface=yes \ --rel-alloc=yes --memory-usage-stats \ --dynamic=yes --with-xmu=no \ --package-path='/users/darrylo/d0/gnu/outside-XEmacs/packages:/usr/local/lib/xemacs/packages:~/.xemacs' (Sorry, I generally don't use gcc, as profile-based optimization results in a faster XEmacs.) [ Hmmm. Mumble, furble. ] OK, I've just compiled Pyrenean using an old gcc 2.8.1, and it seems to work fine. Here's what was used (just run "configure" and "make"): ./configure --with-gcc=yes \ --site-includes=/usr/local/include:/opt/audio/include \ --site-libraries=/usr/local/lib:/opt/audio/lib \ --with-site-lisp=yes \ --gung-ho=yes \ --verbose \ --cflags='-g' \ --prefix=/opt/hp \ --with-xpm=yes \ --with-xface=yes \ --rel-alloc=yes --memory-usage-stats \ --dynamic=yes --with-xmu=no \ --package-path='/users/darrylo/d0/gnu/outside-XEmacs/packages:/usr/local/lib/xemacs/packages:~/.xemacs' I'm sure that some of the above options are redundant, and not required. [ Hey, I generally don't use gcc, and so I have little incentive to keep it up-to-date (or use egcs). I only keep gcc around to compile ddd and to occasionally play with kde. ] -- Darryl Okahata darrylo(a)sr.hp.com DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the little green men that have been following him all day.