From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning. Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:46:15 +0200 Message-ID: <86fy7g34tk.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <85ps6okoe5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87lkhcj791.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87tzvwvj6c.fsf@gmx.at> <861wj04qcq.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <873b3gpn4u.fsf@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1175676590 10511 80.91.229.12 (4 Apr 2007 08:49:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, Chong Yidong , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Markus Triska Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 04 10:49:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HZ1BN-0000CA-Ao for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:49:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ1Ea-0006SP-DV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:52:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ1Bf-0005ib-I3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:49:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ1Bc-0005hk-By for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:49:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ1Bc-0005he-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:49:48 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HZ18L-0001Fz-BO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.15.219]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13922 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:46:15 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 6690 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9AEA124B8C; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:46:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <873b3gpn4u.fsf@gmx.at> (Markus Triska's message of "Wed\, 04 Apr 2007 10\:19\:45 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:69039 Archived-At: Markus Triska writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> It points to c-end-of-defun, but the line number and described >> called function are nonsensical. > > The line number is that of the first form of the function the > questionable code is in. That makes sense, since the problem is in > that function. It is *not* the call of char-before that's bogus. It's > that its return value isn't used in the caller, c-end-of-defun. Any > line of that function could contain the oversight. What line number > would in your view make more sense to report? The line number of the call to char-before, of course. The line number of the whole enclosing function is plain useless. If the function contain dozens of calls of char-before, the message would not help at all in figuring out which one was involved. > And yes, improving the optimiser to report `char-before' instead of > `char-after' would be nice. I doubt that it would help anyone who > can't find the problem with the current (quite good) message though. So apparently I am not anyone. I reported this warning without being able to figure out where it came from, remember? And I am not exactly such an idiot when it comes to programming that I can be dismissed as irrelevant. -- David Kastrup