From: Phil Sainty <psainty@orcon.net.nz>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@runbox.com>,
Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>,
bug-gnu-emacs
<bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+psainty=orcon.net.nz@gnu.org>,
31688@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#31688: 26.1.50; Byte compiler confuses two string variables
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 22:02:27 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a9f684c2867ae9a7deccb51d04f9de6@webmail.orcon.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y3fw9g18.fsf@igel.home>
On 2018-06-04 01:05, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 04 2018, Phil Sainty <psainty@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>> I generally dislike it when byte-compiled and interpreted code
>> give different results.
>
> This really has nothing to do with byte-compilation. Whether
> literals are shared or not should not be relied upon. You always
> have to be careful when modifying values in-place.
I don't disagree that one ought to take care when modifying values
in-place, but my general concern is purely that the byte-compiler is
producing code which does not behave the same as the uncompiled code.
(i.e. I think my issue is specifically to do with byte-compilation,
and I would consider such discrepancies to be a problem irrespective
of the sort of code which was affected.)
Surely consistent behaviour between compiled and uncompiled code is
not only desirable, but a primary goal?
I realise (albeit vaguely) that the byte code and its interpreter are
rather different to the uncompiled versions, so I suppose this may not
be the only situation where a discrepancy results; but I think that
known cases ought be identified and documented (and I think that
eliminating such differences may be a valuable improvement).
The "(elisp)Byte Compilation" info node could certainly do with a
child node detailing the ways in which byte-compiled code behaves
differently from uncompiled code, so that elisp authors can gain an
understanding of all these nuances from a single section of the
manual.
> Whether literals are shared or not should not be relied upon.
Why?
I mean, in this case we already know the answer, but why shouldn't the
behaviour be consistent and dependable between the two variants?
Again, it bothers me to think that someone could observe a bug when
running byte-compiled code, and try to debug it but, through the
process of instrumenting functions for debugging, unwittingly change
the behaviour of the code such that the bug no longer occurs.
-Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-04 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-02 17:51 bug#31688: 26.1.50; Byte compiler confuses two string variables Gemini Lasswell
2018-06-02 18:02 ` Noam Postavsky
2018-06-02 22:52 ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-06-02 23:25 ` Noam Postavsky
2018-06-03 0:40 ` Drew Adams
2018-06-02 23:03 ` Drew Adams
2018-06-02 23:38 ` Phil Sainty
2018-06-02 23:54 ` Noam Postavsky
2018-06-03 12:32 ` Phil Sainty
2018-06-03 13:05 ` Andreas Schwab
2018-06-04 10:02 ` Phil Sainty [this message]
2018-06-04 15:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-06-04 17:01 ` Andreas Schwab
2018-06-08 15:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-06-03 0:02 ` Michael Heerdegen
2018-06-03 0:46 ` Drew Adams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2a9f684c2867ae9a7deccb51d04f9de6@webmail.orcon.net.nz \
--to=psainty@orcon.net.nz \
--cc=31688@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+psainty=orcon.net.nz@gnu.org \
--cc=gazally@runbox.com \
--cc=npostavs@gmail.com \
--cc=schwab@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).