>Is the LISP executable undumped?   It's possible that the SIGIOT is
>actually the result of a bad executable - I had that happen quite a
>few times before I got Emacs to undump correctly.

Remember also that undump, while a neat trick, does not always produce a
binary that is independant of the environment. For instance, the program
loader may decide to load the bss at a different address, depending on your
stack size limit. This screwed up people who used frozen configs with
elderly sendmails, and then decided to put an 'unlimit' on top of /etc/rc.
The frozen config was an even more simplistic approach to faster program
startup, utilising the same ideas as undump uses.

You could try to dump the executable header (can't nm do that? I'm in a
train right now, with just my faithful Macintosh on my lap) and see if it
requires load addresses that may be incompatible with NetBSD.

                                -- Bert Driehuis

------
Bert Driehuis                 God, grant me the serenity to accept the things
driehuis@utrecht.knoware.nl   I can't change, courage to change the things I
                              can, and the wisdom to know the difference.