From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recursive compilation? Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:05:24 -0300 Message-ID: References: <83d3iuds7y.fsf@gnu.org> <83vcwld1fh.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1307400003 24354 80.91.229.12 (6 Jun 2011 22:40:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 22:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 07 00:39:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QTiSi-00054Z-6G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:39:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57038 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTiSh-0007jY-4Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:39:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTg3H-0002re-8L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:05:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTg3F-0004pc-KO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:05:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:59343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTg3F-0004pV-8N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:05:29 -0400 Original-Received: from 213-159-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.159.213]:50846 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTg3E-0004sH-41; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:05:28 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A8BB6660DD; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:05:24 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <83vcwld1fh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:08:34 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140246 Archived-At: >> > There's a controversy about that, because there are legitimate and >> > important use cases where Stefan's simpler solution causes trouble. >> I think I missed that discussion. Do you have a recap, by any chance? > The one use case I remember is when you are developing a Lisp package > and it is not yet ready for prime time (e.g., loading it would break Emacs). If we only change the "newest" behavior for byte-compilation, it means the above will only apply when byte-compiling a file which requests your temporarily-broken package. There are plenty of other ways to break Emacs with local changes (e.g. changes that aren't ready for prime-time applied to the Makefiles, or to C files, or ...), and there are plenty of ways to handle this problem (e.g. "bzr shelve; make; bzr unshelve"), so I'm really not convinced it's worth the hassle any more. >> In any case, I think it would make sense to make this an option. >> For instance, a new variable `byte-compile-load-newest-file' >> defaulting to nil. > If foo.el requires 'bar, and bar.elc is outdated, won't loading bar.el > make the result of compiling foo.el less optimized? No. AFAIK the only difference is for inlined functions which will be inlined in a different way, thus resulting in different results. I don't know of anyone who bothered to check which result is better, but my guess is that it's a wash. >> The obvious use case would be for the Emacs makefiles to set that >> to t before compiling the .el files, which I'm sure would save us all a >> bit of time over the coming years. > Even in the Makefile's, I'm not sure it should be an obvious default: > there could be important use cases when you'd want the warning/error > even when building Emacs, e.g. when making a release or pretest > tarball. Glenn already pointed out that it's not an issue. Any other objection? Stefan