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: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: next steps. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:39:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83zhtd1b0j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181210180033.GC4188@ACM> <831s6p2qq1.fsf@gnu.org> <20181210182830.GD4188@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1544467833 31811 195.159.176.226 (10 Dec 2018 18:50:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 10 19:50:29 2018 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 1gWQdQ-0008Dg-RZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:50:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34312 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gWQfX-0004MJ-G5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:52:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37141) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gWQcE-0002JQ-LU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:49:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gWQTU-0002yc-AT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:40:17 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43127) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gWQTU-0002yS-6C; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:40:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2185 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gWQTQ-0005bb-NG; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:40:10 -0500 In-reply-to: <20181210182830.GD4188@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:28:30 +0000) 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:231743 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:28:30 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > I don't think I understood when will this alternative interpreter be > > used, and when will the "primary" one be used. Can you elaborate on > > that? > > Yes. The alternative interpreter would be used only for byte > compilation (and possibly other programs which want to use the symbols > with position mechanism), the primary one will be used at all other > times. Then how about invoking this alternative interpreter only if the prime interpreter detected a warning or error while byte-compiling? You could invoke the alternative interpreter only on the form where the problem was detected, with the goal of "drilling down" to find the exact position of the problematic symbol(s). This would have the advantage of not only avoiding the slow-down in the "prime" interpreter, but also avoiding slowing down byte compilation of error-free sources. Does this make sense?