From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Towards a cleaner build Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 13:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <831s0xd3z1.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnohbhny.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="44568"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 17 13:47:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hRbKn-000BSr-O5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 13:47:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47138 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRbKm-0003Gu-Db for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:47:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39346) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRbJr-0003EZ-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:46:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRbJq-0003Gg-16 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:46:35 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:33648) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRbJp-0003EH-R6; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:46:33 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hRb8L-0002Ju-Vi; Fri, 17 May 2019 13:34:44 +0200 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAHlBMVEXJt76HdH3aydX39PTz 7/Lx6Ozo2uPs4eb////j0t/+qZGsAAACW0lEQVQ4jV3UzW/TMBQAcDt8jN7iHkC9pYF15OxM7IgW W9txsHget2lanPmGJmKv/0GPVYCO99/ynNAkw6rSyj+/56+XEuW9r0uhsOlmDe39pm9ECCGV4PhV FEKb9X2+OemgCNBgp+BcaG8tIUd7UG4exvOcS2+r6tPv0j/2qXx4Cl5w5dcP0UVKyKsOhLrFRyku udLO/fp29nDeTS6FOA1z5wU/Vt4dZev2ul+VEJ/7TDyX7nG/3EIUHWA3f8+PrwbAnlycfujgBc/1 9RCBCYR42cFPhDHiH/CuPY/gEzgbgHcRR5hqG0ROgYs8Uj0I+V9Euiq76YU8fwZyye4C5OUImwBq yQ5Vt6NxVSdh3FfKDppS8FzpZ3OohyQB2JV4ZVcTKISC75lpF4el0iOocFF6PYOWZo334+m6Svna uxksWVwbY4aIGozFzwy2LN4ZgAF2NoIMAFMxurKwGyCDFKBFgGSJjym0WbaN5hlslwuMeBxhB7BN 55m5WS7Wxo5zGJwRgO28oQfO2CGixrWDMezJO+JrZ0ZotPaNohEhK6WacYNelQqr/SqUtpSTnVcS azPc0ZfDcIgj3Im+2HL6rpRTqMI4hFP2Vgms9vsB8HixEvILFj8p7W8HeGpKqS7xZWKMNNq0f/aw 8vhSakxCX+MvO4Ear0cL7eii0t6lA8ygNvaH1DdsgYdg0497iNKspZV24QK9s8kE0oTFbULZHJPC BJKIMpamNM4woh0BG2UxxqVg/G1KpkBYTDAlZLYl5M0UsD8AtAmhA8S0h7AK/EtgAzBsHSBhwAB/ AW2gjnzNWeJHAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC In-Reply-To: (Noam Postavsky's message of "Fri, 17 May 2019 07:25:01 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.231.51 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:236653 Archived-At: Noam Postavsky writes: > This makes sense, but it should come for free. There's never any point > in issuing a warning about not using the advertised calling convention > from inside the function itself. Similarly, we shouldn't issue > warnings about calls to obsolete functions from bodies of functions > that are themselves obsolete. Yes, both of those things makes total sense, I think. >> But there's other things you may want to disable warnings about that >> perhaps won't be that easy to express, so `with-no-warnings' seems more >> focused and convenient... > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/4837 "with-fewer-warnings ?" talks about > adding something even more focused than with-no-warnings. `with-no-warnings' is a pretty blunt instrument; yes. Stefan and Glenn (in that thread) suggests the super-specific (with-suppressed-warnings '((obsolete read-file-name-predicate ...)) body) form, which makes sense to me. Would implementing this stuff be difficult, I wonder? I've never had much of a gander at the byte compilation stuff. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no