From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61730: 30.0.50; Compiler warnings for delq and delete Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:45:18 +0100 Message-ID: <87bkljf4oh.fsf@web.de> References: <87ilfsisje.fsf@web.de> <670D8E4A-333D-4E2D-97CC-86728965989D@gmail.com> <83a613np4p.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsavf688.fsf@web.de> <831qmfnkto.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35196"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: mattias.engdegard@gmail.com, 61730@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 24 16:46:52 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaHc-00090q-3b for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:46:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaH5-0005q7-OY; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:46:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaGo-0005ax-Vo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:46:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaGo-0002r1-NE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaGo-0001eV-JZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:46:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61730 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61730-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61730.16772535336288 (code B ref 61730); Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:46:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61730) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Feb 2023 15:45:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37964 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaGK-0001dM-S0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:45:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:47535) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVaGI-0001d2-0p for 61730@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:45:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1677253520; i=michael_heerdegen@web.de; bh=SEo29mcVnWsRZ+7WzYi6k0TN2j93xs541IZKbOPk5ro=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=KFPMO60v2lr90aVShF3B9US8kQ58044oLzAuMpZf4VBESYCx8K9FaPwUHqLFV+Eyz BSlpjXg8m+iQBYeXhV4gQJWWwaY+x0U7HiMSIp1D3y7C7HClI3dBah6nPiuGUsmlHn Jp9fp2lxutUDmJdZmpr29hWjYBl5vxt3ZbaeZrDtp6/Z1PZBtwN/tuq6HXB6HLu3CR Ie6qTxS8Rpx1TbY94bxy3NSpSmjlMemZrS5pJeTc+usRWXvTdee2JucQ+rYt8PfdPY OT2BkD0q0lqvzCxMF9lTAUl5EvlYPCimt4TYtIT00bL2XQzRn/xGSKFXcGlPJgwY/j xKZASAvqsU/fw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([84.59.210.57]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb105 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N1uAl-1oTshV2nTl-0127U1; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:45:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <831qmfnkto.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:29:23 +0200") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:vHvXJCpkyeiKJf44MuUdqBngsYJGQHtYLopc55406J3kHlER4MU eH5n0heUzBKBUv5OF5uWvDtAZfddhah8LzPKRRm6FYmNuSiqcktKQhwCF5yV+GmOG05iho8 xM75X1phZa7T8Gp1nD+f7ikBx0UnS/LqGytpjVDUz0pzB+FCTfiSaNw5wCjTVyumWnsD1f6 LzLATgN3js6DVo2SZJAJQ== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:5TIp0b9cdic=;mbE6HPAKuPk0SdVHw2MGI75U2Kd A/teyFmTf8JrhbwkZBRQUL/8npXsRZHdBhf6QGSbhHTGiDK1dZHkcGmnTC6Qwefh+1sMEZPBQ ON6HR1Zf+dyFfvrQChzkGmQ63HvJcL2Wq0MRZr/tK3kot2lJQDyGt+7hNQ+KyXJkeARo+nvsg HXAuH9ZjSonX2H7x7KR0UsVvuMYanyGuWJjJZaNY5Yam9WxR7zk7XSw2jqisHdfC2+qXzi1in e602U5RlICULF21wWChET164KwOoYDCpSTDxUyCiuTPb6ehGL6bO60ZJY6Tg5eU40lSNGxqOG gZzCUHldkEdIfqkcBsswEaQEuHHifiVFCtl21bnpzCIGS6GBCEL2LGK5A/8oduvdRkYKNazxg rkTGOjL8p0P3GJ3vnACv/uBxnUxnDun08X1w3vSuTvWZTWJmgqx00z71GJSyrEf0DrVWBsKZH hze927FhWfmL9qead+tQunSZ2s5jcTeee8Il2dpb/wroCZOyaBfgwQ5mhJZ0QLwfKpQwQqRUQ tY31Tn+92g2i7FUEB2fQTE9VX1jcVq1nP5LqUy1QIVVahKoB8zSWHWJA5i/2i8oAlUmwT7yVQ Az0BAHllswhjSuF5RrP4JndAJhzjp3jt4FC2PgO5ZNGNghG3QOpqF59yuTdTjZZAqRkSjLgaW 1i024rBY1inObTU0WorJp+fMtkNHkcr1gA5a8DZdph1hMRqdNUiGHztydTQIG9/JoQD8ejA50 N63ClCMxBl7b/9UPej2NkDVWR9hd7O8cu5xFgLguKLwQPOO9Visn5kmW3ZL9dZM0SZhaxtSA X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:256619 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Not in my opinion. I'm sick and tired from seeing compilers emitting > bogus warnings which require one to spend time verifying perfectly > correct code, or, worse, modify the code to shut up the compiler. Do > we really want to see stuff like > > (setq _ (delq ...)) > > in our code? That's a bit of an exaggeration: the code would just look like in the thousands of other cases where we are not sure whether the element to delete is not at the head, like (setq my-list (delq elt my-list)) which is not worse, even better readable IMO, than a naked `delq' call. > If it's really impossible (and I'm not sure it is), then the better > course of action is to emit the warnings only if the byte compiler was > requested to be more sensitive to potential issues, similar to GCC's > "-W*" options. IOW, if someone wants to lint their code, let them ask > for a linting compilation. But I would be okay with that. Michael.