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: Emacs is not reproducible Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87lf8dcrcd.fsf@disroot.org> <15pmxh100n.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <68D4CF9A-C5F9-4665-9306-A6D0A6258260@acm.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="5823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Glenn Morris , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 23:38:07 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 1lmNhf-0001HE-9D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 23:38:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50420 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmNhe-0005lP-AH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:38:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmNdF-0003Jf-Aq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:2041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmNdC-0000Xo-Id; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:32 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 921601001F9; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F326010008C; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:27 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1622151207; bh=aPwdsMJZs5SqeQUWLu9YZumL9XvClwP4XUhRyAf42ls=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MTzs8xN7oukYXrP70gz7RKCB+aZccNIHKsw0CjgyAJj2LTAUYIUahZ/VfAO3QFZPQ 3cvNK7WOctYV9jei6+LtGaQZsov/MbG2s+IckpzVJDXkS21YbMT6YVrtWxN746fotS u2Vs9O7sUzTpqTill3SQnSoX88h2prEmH9qDwYbpjDX50gU9tzXezlNVTH5s39ElVa da4LGG7ohw2aKK3DjNq3XNPcBsrPLSdBB7WMKktFA7VXpUdbevxixbSofIPGGxHM0b KhYpbYBm2vkkeLpKjyJJ+J8yshSTU5n42jKN1ASHz9Qeop2iz3HXL4LMtJNJSL9+y9 ROQi+2uE5FjlA== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4C25120314; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:33:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <68D4CF9A-C5F9-4665-9306-A6D0A6258260@acm.org> ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Thu, 27 May 2021 14:24:01 +0200") 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:269967 Archived-At: >> Matthias, could you try and see where byte-opt.el should let-bind >> `byte-optimize--lexvars` to nil to avoid this problem? >> I guess we could add it to `byte-compile-top-level`, but it would be >> better if we could do it somewhere in `byte-opt.el`. > Oh dear, I can't really find any good place to bind the variable either, but > ended up doing it in `byte-compile-inline-expand` on the grounds that it's > the only place we re-enter the compiler from the optimiser. Fair enough. > It would probably be better if we had a single entry for > `byte-optimize-form` that wasn't used recursively; then it could be > done there. Indeed, that was also my conclusion. > Anyway, feel free to improve. Writing the test was what took most of the time anyway! Thanks for the test, Stefan