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 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.... 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&gt; | Blessed Be! ＠ http://www.lewismoss.org/~dres | Linux is kewl! ＠"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach