bug#30499: 26.0.91; Compiler warning cannot be suppressed

[Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>]

found 30499 24.3
quit

Francis Wright <francis.j.wright@gmail.com> writes:

> (with-no-warnings (byte-compile '(:foo)))

I think it should rather be like this (shows the same warning):

    (byte-compile (lambda () (with-no-warnings (:foo))))

> produces the warning
>
> Warning: ‘:foo’ called as a function

Seems to have been the case at least as far back as 24.3, and probably
farther.

> Setting byte-compile-warnings to nil also does not suppress this
> warning.  So either the documentation or the operation of both
> with-no-warnings and byte-compile-warnings is incorrect.

I think the warning is just missing a `byte-compile-warning-enabled-p'
check:

--- i/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ w/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -3128,7 +3128,8 @@ byte-compile-form
              (when (assq var byte-compile-lexical-variables)
                (byte-compile-report-error
                 (format-message "%s cannot use lexical var `%s'" fn var))))))
-        (when (macroexp--const-symbol-p fn)
+        (when (and (byte-compile-warning-enabled-p 'suspicious)
+                   (macroexp--const-symbol-p fn))
           (byte-compile-warn "`%s' called as a function" fn))
 	(when (and (byte-compile-warning-enabled-p 'interactive-only)
 		   interactive-only)


> In fact, it seems a little inconsistent to me that none of
>
> (defun :foo ())
>
> (byte-compile ':foo)
>
> (:foo)
>
> produces any warning, but compiling the call of :foo does produce a
> warning.

Maybe (byte-compile (lambda () (defun :foo ()))) should give a warning,
though I don't see why the others should.