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: Native Compilation And External Packages Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <24754.27537.803673.706445@google.com> <83czt95wco.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17628"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "T.V Raman" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 29 20:58:31 2021 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 1ln4AJ-0004M7-2q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 20:58:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57820 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln4AI-0007rT-5o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:58:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln48J-0004OK-3T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:46219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln48G-00069S-5f; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:26 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EA638441016; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC2C6440FB0; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1622314581; bh=Sj8Nzwq7awc80sEG69jAeNo240kJkTBGuQGRNiZmffg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OCXm3jaPxzoAGdJkm7rJOS8KOM/VrsH5rFp25XidUKq1g+77sTDRsc7s9f0mtXyml i9sOHIweUZtx2ulSDN0I3SRF/DZ4u80tDEuAwtPr15/YPZ5e4JjLy9X/OuyE0FcReP eQ2vyw7tMpCfcjq4nHPziVJCRt2V7o1HvDPNlfxoEVrL0n+QZhUNxevvFNcdVTv9g9 fp8gDvgGEbwezxi22BnvDKOIiyK8KEtxHLzdnSFUSkOwEgv/SFn5mzV+UfHbc9m96F 9jRSSM/zFjl7jECfijtXIc1BKiYwuyIYv9X/Eu7j4XmcveikrRe+OK8YDEijqexeT/ 20k+2kVm1przA== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 714CF120210; Sat, 29 May 2021 14:56:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (T. V. Raman's message of "Sat, 29 May 2021 10:14:43 -0700") 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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:270092 Archived-At: T.V Raman [2021-05-29 10:14:43] wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > The warnings are inconsistent as in: Please, please, pretty please write this in a bug report. Or better yet, two bug reports: one for the case where you replace `batch-byte-compile` with `batch-native-compile`, and another for the case where native compilation takes place lazily. The "extra warnings" during lazy native compilation is a known problem, but one we need to address, so making a bug report about it will be helpful. The problems you mentioned when replacing `batch-byte-compile` with `batch-native-compile` OTOH are not known, AFAIK, so we really need a clear bug report with details of what you did, what that got you, and why you think it's wrong about that. Stefan