Re: Building a release tarball generates trampoline files in eln-cache

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 10:37:38 -0400
> 
> >    subr--trampoline-782d6c6973742d666f6e7473_x_list_fonts_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d706978656c2d686569676874_x_display_pixel_height_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d706978656c2d7769647468_x_display_pixel_width_0.eln
> >    subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d706c616e6573_x_display_planes_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d636f6c6f722d63656c6c73_x_display_color_cells_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d7365727665722d6d61782d726571756573742d73697a65_x_server_max_request_size_0.eln
> >    subr--trampoline-782d7365727665722d76656e646f72_x_server_vendor_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d73637265656e73_x_display_screens_0.eln
> >    subr--trampoline-782d7365727665722d76657273696f6e_x_server_version_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d6261636b696e672d73746f7265_x_display_backing_store_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d6d6d2d686569676874_x_display_mm_height_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d6d6d2d7769647468_x_display_mm_width_0.eln
> >    
> > subr--trampoline-782d646973706c61792d76697375616c2d636c617373_x_display_visual_class_0.eln
> > 
> > Is this expected, and if so, why aren't these trampoline files put
> > under native-lisp/ directory in the build tree?  I presume that these
> > trampoline files need to be installed together with the rest of *.eln,
> > or else the installed Emacs will not work, right?
> 
> Is this a 32-bit build?

Yes.  But I don't think I understand why this should matter.  Do you?

> I saw the same issue when I built on 32-bit Cygwin, but 
> not when I built on 64-bit Cygwin.  I don't remember which system I used when 
> I 
> created the tarball (i.e., when I byte-compiled the elisp files).  It 
> shouldn't 
> matter, but Paul's report in Bug#51104 makes me wonder.

You are saying that this is because the tarball (and thus the *.elc
files) were built on a 64-bit system?  But I see the same if I build
the tarball on a 64-bit GNU/Linux machine.