Regarding the functional regressions and the test-results found so far, the most obvious test-case I could find for failed XML-parsing was eww.
Phil: This should be fairly easy for you to verify locally before publishing a new test-build, right?
Sorry about the slow response. I've been ill, and haven't had time to test this in a production environment until now.
I've got good news and I got bad news. I'll try to be as short and concise as possible.
In my testing, I've taken the provided Emacs 25-build, downloaded the corresponding GNU libraries prebuilt by ezwinports, and combined this output in a common Emacs folder from where I've run my tests.
My tool for automating this process is available online.
My quickest attempt to do semi-scientific testing is checking with Windows Performance Recorder, how long a sustained 100% CPU usage period is during startup on my current Emacs-configuration.
The results are below:
- Emacs 25.1 (Phil's build): 7 seconds
- Emacs 25.1 (GNU's release-build): 12 seconds
- Emacs 24.5 (GNU's release-build): 7 seconds
Phil's build thus has the same performance characteristics as Emacs 24.5 for Windows.
And I'd love to say that this was the end of the story... but... I like to do real world testing too :)
I've found functional regressions in Phil's build, especially in what seems to be handling of incoming XML data from inferior processes. This error is not found in the official GNU build currently published for Emacs 25.1, nor in Emacs 24.5.
My use-case is fairly simple:
Ensure eslint is installed globally in your environment
(Install NodeJS, and then do "npm install -g eslint")
- Open a JS-file which should trigger eslint warnings.
- Enable flycheck-mode (which in turn will invoke eslint).
In this case, opening a file with eslint warnings yields no in-buffer flycheck errors, but instead a error-message in the minibuffer saying something to the extent of this:
Is Emacs not able to load libxml? Are DLLs linked correctly? Is there any way I can help and do diagnostics on my end?
This seems like a symptom of a pretty critical issue which will needs to be resolved before any new release-build can be published. Let me know how I can help.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016, at 07:12 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:55:27 +0000
It's okay. In general, if you don't strip the binaries, it would be
better to also include -g3 in CFLAGS (so that there's debug info
there, and reports about crashes can be accompanied by meaningful
information), but for a release it is less important than for a
pretest, so I see no need for yet another build.
Confused? You mean to have four builds in total?
No, of course not. Just 2: one for x86, the other x86_64.
Or you want me to configure with:
CFLAGS="-O2 -static -g3"
That's the best if you don't strip the binaries, yes.
Thanks, and sorry for the confusion I caused.