From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stuart D. Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: erroneous byte-compilation during build process? Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <34798.128.165.123.132.1146599207.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> References: <87hd48p6np.fsf@escher.local.home> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146599235 31372 80.91.229.2 (2 May 2006 19:47:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 21:47:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0pw-0007Ox-2L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 21:47:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0pv-0007zQ-KV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0pk-0007ya-ST for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:46:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0pj-0007wi-5u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:46:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0pi-0007wc-Ub for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:46:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.65.95.54] (helo=mailwasher-b.lanl.gov) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Fb0pw-0007QJ-6G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:47:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay3.lanl.gov (mailrelay3.lanl.gov [128.165.4.104]) by mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id k42Jko31018185 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 13:46:50 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay3.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id k42Jklvc026775; Tue, 2 May 2006 13:46:47 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k42JkloB011733; Tue, 2 May 2006 13:46:47 -0600 Original-Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id k42Jklf8011731; Tue, 2 May 2006 12:46:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: webmail1.lanl.gov: apache set sender to herring@lanl.gov using -f Original-Received: from 128.165.123.132 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434); by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2006 12:46:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87hd48p6np.fsf@escher.local.home> Original-To: "Stephen Berman" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-11.EL3 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-11.EL3 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075 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:53811 Archived-At: > Is my conclusion plausible? If so, is it cause for concern that there > may be other erroneous byte-compiled files in the installation tree? > And does this indicate a bug in the byte compiler, or could something > else induce the error? The two recentf.elc files -- the one made by > the build process and the one I byte-compiled from source -- differ in > almost every line, as shown by diff -a, but I don't know what the > differences mean: as far as I can tell, they only differ in cons cells > like this: > > 19c19 > < (defvar recentf-list nil (#$ . 677)) > --- > > (defvar recentf-list nil (#$ . 671)) If these are the only changes, they're entirely irrelevant; the numbers just indicate the places in the file where the documentation can be found. The difference is probably a difference in the length of the file name given in the comment block at the top. Check for other differences, or make the file/path names the same length for testing. Davis -- This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during shipping.