From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A couple of things that I think should be in byte bytecode meta comments Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:25:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83fu81luke.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o9mqlin0.fsf@gnu.org> <83h8sildcd.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1514017484 1329 195.159.176.226 (23 Dec 2017 08:24:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Rocky Bernstein Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 23 09:24:39 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf6l-0008M2-IG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:24:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40980 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf8i-0001zz-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:26:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59537) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf7n-0001yw-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:25:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf7m-0007sq-AV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:25:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf7g-0007mW-Nl; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:25:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3392 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eSf7g-0003F7-1Y; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:25:36 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Rocky Bernstein on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:55:06 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:221366 Archived-At: > From: Rocky Bernstein > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:55:06 -0500 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > That there is also a SHA of the text. If the text in any of those 60 files is identical it doesn't matter for purposes > of debugging and error location determination which one > in the set you decide to call the source. If there's a SHA, why do we also need a file name? > I'm saying that the minuscule amount of times it will work will drown > in the sea of times it won't. Worse, when it "doesn't work", it will > many times produce a false alarm: the file name is different, but the > contents was identical. > > If that's the case, then how is this different than what we have now? If it isn't different, why add the recording of file names? It does nothing to improve the situation.