From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution! Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2021 19:55:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8335nfw2pe.fsf@gnu.org> <838rx4s224.fsf@gnu.org> <834k7ss172.fsf@gnu.org> <83bl1w5fdk.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="23996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 04 20:57:01 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 1mtb9Z-000641-96 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 20:57:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36564 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtb9X-0000qU-Ez for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 14:56:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtb8C-0008EG-Gu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 14:55:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:56565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtb88-00033a-SN; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 14:55:35 -0500 Original-Received: from ma.sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 1B4JtSEw021695 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 4 Dec 2021 19:55:30 GMT In-Reply-To: <83bl1w5fdk.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 04 Dec 2021 21:39:19 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 2.1.29 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:280939 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Andrea Corallo >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2021 19:22:02 +0000 >> >> I think it could be a good idea but I believe there's no need to use >> macros here, we could have just functions return rvalues no? >> >> I'm not a big fan of C macros and I try not to use them whem possible. > > Macros punish unoptimized builds less severely than functions. Yep, but in this case I'm sure the perf delta is not measurable therefore IMO functions should be preferred. Andrea