From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: strange byte compiler behavior Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:13:38 -0800 Message-ID: <200801022213.m02MDh9u014810@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <200712312055.lBVKteSa012881@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200801021948.m02JmJ1Y005211@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <477C06F7.4020208@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199312245 30172 80.91.229.12 (2 Jan 2008 22:17:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 02 23:17:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JABu9-00070Z-Nm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:17:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABtn-00086R-Ff for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:17:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JABtj-00083v-3X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:17:15 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JABtg-00080q-UL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:17:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABtg-00080b-Mb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:17:12 -0500 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JABtg-0004EA-9f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:17:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m02MDh9u014810; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <477C06F7.4020208@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:49:43 +0100") Original-Lines: 38 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:85945 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: > > which runs: -batch --no-site-file --multibyte --eval "(batch-byte-recompile-directory 0)" > > does NOT warn > > What happens when you comment out the disjunct > > (memq var byte-compile-free-references) > > from `byte-compile-variable-ref'? Alternatively what is the value of > that variable when you do not get the warning? I can't try this right now, but why would it be relevant. Because (boundp var) is true, then (or (boundp var) BLAH) is true and BLAH does not get executed after that. > Also, could you try the same with just the file in question in the > directory you recompile? I tried that before, no difference. > > (message "var %s boundp %s" var (boundp var)) > > to `byte-compile-variable-ref' shows that `file' is bound for the function > > in question. Which would explain the results. > > Any idea what causes `file' to be bound? (Assuming that boundp is the > > correct test in that context...) > > Since `byte-compile-variable-ref' has > > (or (boundp var) > > it would be interesting _where_ in `byte-compile-variable-ref' you > inserted that. At the beginning of the function, but as I explained above, it is not relevant.