Instead of being the intermediary here I've sent this email to the
original bug reporter and xemacs-beta. Please Tim Connors could you
respond to xemacs-beta with the answers to the questions posed below
(prefixed by Stephen).
Thanks
Jim
>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:06:57 +0900, "Stephen J.
Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> said:
>>>> "Dres" == James LewisMoss
<dres(a)lewismoss.org> writes:
>> No core file is left.
Stephen> Well, get him to switch them on. ulimit -c unlimited.
Stephen> Although it probably won't help all that much since I
Stephen> suppose the binary is stripped....
>> It'd certainly be great if frames starting by the lisp
function
>> (gnuserv-edit-files) ignored any X-errors, so the underlying
>> xemacs process doesn't die.
Stephen> Not really. That would probably result in "Energizer Bunny"
Stephen> syndrome (XEmacs consuming 100% of CPU in a tight loop
Stephen> looking for X input).
Stephen> Exactly what is being done here? Are there multiple
Stephen> displays involved, or are all the gnuclients being run from
Stephen> the same display? If there are multiple displays, then
Stephen> XEmacs shouldn't die, I think.
Stephen> If there's only one display, then the thing to do is not use
Stephen> -unmapped. I agree it would be cool if we could arrange for
Stephen> XEmacs to not die in this circumstance, but this is a hard
Stephen> problem, because most users _do_ want XEmacs to die (since
Stephen> they shut down XEmacs by killing the X server process or
Stephen> logging out from XDM).
--
@James LewisMoss <dres(a)lewismoss.org> | Blessed Be!
@
http://www.lewismoss.org/~dres | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach