[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: loaddefs.el on Windows incomplete
From: |
Ralf Angeli |
Subject: |
Re: loaddefs.el on Windows incomplete |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:56:17 +0100 |
* Eli Zaretskii (2005-12-24) writes:
> I installed a change that should fix this problem for you. Can you
> sync with the repository and see if autoloads now work even with MSYS
> munging of the command line?
Thanks for your efforts. I did a fresh checkout into a new directory,
ran `configure ...' and while doing `mingw32-make bootstrap' the
following error occurred:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
"./../bin/emacs.exe" -batch --no-init-file --no-site-file --multibyte -l
autoload \
--eval '(setq find-file-hook nil find-file-suppress-same-file-warnings
t)' \
-f w32-batch-update-autoloads
"D:/software/windows/unix/src/emacs-22.0.50-clean-build/lisp/loaddefs.el" .
calc calendar emacs-lisp emulation eshell gnus international language mail mh-e
net obsolete play progmodes term textmodes url
Wrong type argument: symbolp, 0
mingw32-make[1]: *** [autoloads] Error -1
mingw32-make[1]: Leaving directory
`D:/software/windows/unix/src/emacs-22.0.50-clean-build/lisp'
mingw32-make: *** [bootstrap-gmake] Error 2
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
In order to get a backtrace I set `debug-on-error' to t via the --eval
statement above. That means I edited lisp/makefile.w32-in
accordingly and ran `configure' again. Interestingly the error did
not occur with this change. I tried this both in the directory where
the make call failed with the original makefile.w32-in and in a
directory which had not seen a make call before. Same results.
Then I tried to run `mingw32-make bootstrap' in a freshly checked out
and configured directory including the patch I proposed for
lisp/makefile.w32-in and got the same error as above. Let-binding
`debug-on-error' to t made the error vanish again. Now I don't really
know where to look for the cause of the error.
Anyway, in the directories where the build succeeded I did a `diff -u
loaddefs.el ldefs-boot.el' which showed no differences between the
files. The build I did about a week ago (with the patch I proposed)
shows lots of differences between the files. So I am not really sure
if loaddefs.el was generated correctly.
--
Ralf