From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Byte-compiled elisp libraries on different platforms Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:42:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20081120104754.GE6811@groll.co.za> <010201c94b34$281dbd30$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <000f01c94b3d$f324c010$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227206587 20845 80.91.229.12 (20 Nov 2008 18:43:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Jonathan Groll , GnuEmacs Help To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 20 19:44:11 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L3EVb-0001pQ-N1 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:44:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42433 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3EUS-0000Ac-UI for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:42:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3ETl-0008N1-7T for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:42:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3ETk-0008MA-K7 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:42:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48361 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3ETk-0008M0-BO for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:42:12 -0500 Original-Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.158]:19167) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L3ETj-0005BP-Vz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:42:12 -0500 Original-Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so308100ywk.66 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:42:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=NkqjWH2k5Z/5L/LStauLPogU3yqjiBgMKKJ1CR4JtlM=; b=TVH75xnZuBlRZ/nljEgoQDqsGO7VkVDCVW45WmP5ETwKxhtEuSNz2Bmw6kxwzThGhe jXj1/0NEoeJXbM4rDKXi/vyjQyXdRGQHKafmLcp9wE2cAmM3rU43B0lRNodBv2I78A8M bz2/qQyMFLjWdoO7o+MCqMlKnSEvwjBoLTsc8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=RaryS6aCS0Y6okHCV9G5Mi5t1Umh15QV///GVigHF6cPI33RjM06kyl7PfnI8Rfdsp Vuiheg+P2SDnvr+4BdD4t4MBeTSUeRO5PkxHCLYixTsg3gIRNkYpbUeeRVQkRNgVXVDR aLv3wXmZsF7oAs0aUS5s3pFHZOL2QaRfq7vu8= Original-Received: by 10.100.197.7 with SMTP id u7mr1304939anf.72.1227206530870; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:42:10 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.100.13.13 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:42:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000f01c94b3d$f324c010$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:59976 Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 19:29, Drew Adams wrote: > Most, yes, probably. The byte-compiler changes probably affect only a minority > of code in incompatible ways. But it's enough. ;-) Hmm. I could be wrong, but I don't remember any changes in the 23.X byte compiler / interpreter stuff making old (22.X, not 19.X ;-) byte-code incompatible. Any such fails is more likely to be from the lisp code than the byte-code. (Of course 23.X files use a different coding system, so they are not back-compatible.) > Agreed. But if the uncompiled code works on two different platforms, then so > should the byte-compiled code (compiled with the same release #). "Should" does not imply "must", of course. You can use compile-time tricks to do almost anything, including generating code which bears no relation to the original lisp... Juanma