From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Markus Triska Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning. Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:44:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87y7l7wf2e.fsf@gmx.at> References: <85ps6okoe5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87lkhcj791.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87tzvwvj6c.fsf@gmx.at> <861wj04qcq.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <873b3gpn4u.fsf@gmx.at> <20070404212752.GA2717@muc.de> <87ps6jq0dz.fsf@gmx.at> <87mz1ng58a.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1175751887 16267 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2007 05:44:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 05:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 05 07:44:41 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 1HZKly-0004PJ-27 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:44:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZKpI-0004TJ-Ot for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:48:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HZKpE-0004Pr-39 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:48:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HZKpC-0004Ns-FA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:47:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZKpC-0004Np-8M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:47:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HZKlq-0003SM-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:44:31 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Apr 2007 05:44:29 -0000 Original-Received: from chello062178240212.3.14.tuwien.teleweb.at (EHLO enterprise) [62.178.240.212] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 05 Apr 2007 07:44:29 +0200 X-Authenticated: #4064391 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18vN/IMgHUvg86MBVmxypsDaZ/CQUWVjQuoscB8xH qSdrNQ/xtXae3f In-Reply-To: <87mz1ng58a.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed\, 04 Apr 2007 18\:11\:17 -0400") X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:69077 Archived-At: Chong Yidong writes: > If the offending function name is unreliable, maybe we should omit > it and issue a "value returned from form is not used" warning. What > do you think? The function name and its starting position/interactive declaration are quite reliable, and I find reporting them OK. If by "unreliable" you mean that any form, even before the defun, could contain the oversight/mistake of not using the return value, you are right. In my experience, the innermost surrounding defun is an OK indicator though.