Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps?

[Brahimi Saifullah <brahimi.saifullah@gmail.com>]

I'm very sorry for the noise, it seems I replied to the wrong Alan :(

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-01/msg01454.html
Brahimi Saifullah <brahimi.saifullah@gmail.com> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> With the current state of the git branch, flymake on a .el file now
>> seems to be working for me.
>
> Yes, Flymake is working perfectly now.
>
> I did notice an issue with the warning for unused forms:
>
>     value returned from (#<symbol + at 2> 1 1) is unused
>     (from byte-compiling a file that consists of "(+ 1 1)")
>
> I expect that the symbol should be used, not the symbol with
> positions.  But it looks like this just got fixed a few hours ago
> in master while my build was from before the merge.
>
>
> While further testing this I also found a couple problems relating to
> unused function arguments -- I'm unsure if they have anything to do with
> the latest round of changes or not.
>
> First, a bug:
>
>     (defun f (a b c)
>   ; ^^^ Warning: Unused lexical argument `a'
>   ;      Warning: Unused lexical argument `b'
>
>     "A B C."
>     (+ 1 1))
>   ; ^^^ Warning: Unused lexical argument `c'
>
> You should be able to reproduce it by copying the above function
> somewhere and byte compiling (sans the).
>
> If the function consists of a single form, the position returned for
> the last "unused lexical argument" will wrongly point to it.  In this
> example, the warning about C being unused will instead point to `+'.
>
> The second issue is that, even when the unused lexical argument warnings
> work correctly, they always point to the "defun," and not to the actual
> argument in question.  Not the end of the world of course, but it would
> be nice for them to be more accurate.
>
>
>> Again, many thanks for the help.
>
> And thanks for the work you've done, faulty warning
> positions had always been an annoyance of mine :)