From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: suppress_checking Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:56:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193216249 12197 80.91.229.12 (24 Oct 2007 08:57:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 24 10:57:30 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 1Ikc3H-00065n-MY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:57:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ikc39-0007Mz-Kc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:57:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ikc2p-0007Dk-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:56:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ikc2n-0007D5-JE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ikc2n-0007Cz-97 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ikc2m-0000Af-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so159935wah for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:56:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ioEloGrBQo/myXA7ABvnHaUy02kiiphqADH3GPS0Ifw=; b=p/5X2uulWBc8SLFuqKoueIhErDN2aQU+P5hefjNnqE+wP/j+2C+n8QLPYOvJgN3EUz6Y1vxuPvlaTOVAWbzK4mCPaPN+z8F+qd5KPCoxJhUK3P8PgaR0XIAcZo2U5ut4h0qCKX9LOaUwFoejFa4OjOMUZpwF62QNSpdQiT2+rMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Q9w72zUrZSlHb1kWBrn4OtE8zYFrwyyWAWByquVRUhmhoVf711+yyckWTY34CFXFp4l7ALvOfHumy0wvtvXDVeCqTdTwAm9ZNGyC8ozMXKiXJqnloXxSWp5O1deVwnKY6x8nK7mQ0vKnyBSFP0QKixR4z2Q9IFk0rU/6eEH9O+I= Original-Received: by 10.114.154.1 with SMTP id b1mr429728wae.1193216206969; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.115.72.13 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:56:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:81643 Archived-At: On 10/24/07, Richard Stallman wrote: > So we might as well make CHECK not compute the condition expression > either. Which means that it might as well test suppress_checking > first. It would be useful to know what was the intention with suppress_checking, and how is used (if someone does use it indeed). Currently there's a difference between #undef ENABLE_CHECKING and #define ENABLE_CHECKING 1 suppress_checking = 1; because in the latter case, the check tests are still executed, though its return value is discarded. Perhaps that difference was intended. Juanma