From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What does "Changing `byte-compile-dest-file'" mean? Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 22 22:14:36 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nMcUV-000A03-CC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 22:14:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53424 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nMcUT-0007zH-V9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:14:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39152) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nMcT6-0006ac-ES for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:4283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nMcT3-0005a3-H2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:07 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA7CE4425A6; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:03 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E3C3C4425A4; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:01 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1645564381; bh=WOReMWKiWixCK3+gs6G76HKMtgMcD7cLpMmoe3QsG90=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CUoOuOR3inRSYkHDrZ0+sf7fGrLZk7BVdm8GArF4344vhsRWyRGE2gI2QDr8Jq9N7 EDM0bMWtXA7Lj/4PRCIH6eTdh7Ia7KJwX7hDsh71faDOBWDfAszA2T6IO6qZzu1ysh An/OSA0M+KAOBrNqTKfWSpPzHAmqUfsliu5zlW23th8WlN/SqhWR2CZolU2Io4H5ft ZYQLF0sKhm+oOCPEkTGd/RPXuIYzcRyBDakZiirhuVzRfuiNYSkqcl9rEcm6v0jtRg 5H4P9v+g5Qk+LvUXBDBiVEUMpP7MpEteLRjOTe11pKiOk4Ko3pZj1kuQ45R1B0Krjj osrMusWRtkEXA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.197.68]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8D00120CF3; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:13:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:22:18 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:286604 Archived-At: > I'm trying to debug a failing bootstrap. Central to the failure is the > error message: > > "Changing `byte-compile-dest-file' is obsolete (as of 23.2); > set `byte-compile-dest-file-function' instead." > > .. The error message comes from emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el L. 171. Hmmm... my crystal ball suggests that your bootstrap ends up loading `bytecomp` recursively, i.e. a first load of `bytecomp` defines `byte-compile-dest-file` and then before reaching the end of the file, it recursive tries to load `bytecomp`, causing the warning to be emitted (because the function is already defined by (featurep 'bytecomp) is still nil). > But what does it mean? In what respect is byte-compile-dest-file being > changed? It's about to be redefined by the subsequent `defun`. That function used to be considered as something that tools/users were allowed to redefine locally in order to save .elc files elsewhere than their standard location. This practice was made obsolete by introducing `byte-compile-dest-file-function` instead. The warning you're seeing should arguably be removed now. Tho I don't know if it will solve your underlying problem. > Just that it might have something to do with early versions of > automake. (Which we don't use, do we?) Not anymore, no, indeed. Stefan