[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: server.el test failures
From: |
Robert Pluim |
Subject: |
Re: server.el test failures |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:05:50 +0100 |
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:13:27 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:
>> #4 0x00005555556a629b in x_term_init
>> (display_name=display_name@entry=XIL(0x5555560152d4),
xrm_option=xrm_option@entry=0x0, resource_name=0x555556010260 "emacs") at
xterm.c:30964
>> #5 0x00005555556a96c7 in Fx_open_connection
(display=XIL(0x5555560152d4), xrm_string=<optimized out>, must_succeed=XIL(0))
at xfns.c:7548
Eli> Why does make-frame create a GUI X frame in a batch session? (I've
Eli> seen that in your previous backtrace, but thought it was because you
Eli> ran that test in an interactive session.) Is that because emacsclient
Eli> and/or server insist on that, or because some snafu inside make-frame,
Eli> or something else? Can you figure that out? I looked at the code,
Eli> but didn't see anything obvious.
DISPLAY is set. The following
set environment DISPLAY=
in gdb makes the test succeed.
The test does 'emacsclient -c', changing that to 'emacsclient -c -nw'
also makes the test succeed
Eli> I don't think we should create GUI frames in batch, since the SIGIO
Eli> handler is not set, and we generally aren't prepared for receiving
Eli> it. We should create a TTY frame instead, or maybe no frame at all.
I think the former would be better. Jim, since you wrote this test,
what do you think?
Robert
--
- Re: server.el test failures (was: Re: bug#9800: Incomplete truncated file buffers from the /proc filesystem), (continued)
- Re: server.el test failures (was: Re: bug#9800: Incomplete truncated file buffers from the /proc filesystem), Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24
- Re: server.el test failures (was: Re: bug#9800: Incomplete truncated file buffers from the /proc filesystem), Paul Eggert, 2023/02/26
- Re: server.el test failures (was: Re: bug#9800: Incomplete truncated file buffers from the /proc filesystem), Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- Re: server.el test failures (was: Re: bug#9800: Incomplete truncated file buffers from the /proc filesystem), Jim Porter, 2023/02/27
- Re: server.el test failures, Robert Pluim, 2023/02/27
- Re: server.el test failures, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/27
- Re: server.el test failures, Robert Pluim, 2023/02/27
- Re: server.el test failures, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/27
- Re: server.el test failures, Robert Pluim, 2023/02/28
- Re: server.el test failures, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/28
- Re: server.el test failures,
Robert Pluim <=
- Re: server.el test failures, Jim Porter, 2023/02/28
- Re: server.el test failures, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/28
- Re: server.el test failures, Jim Porter, 2023/02/28