From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are the tests byte-compiled Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:49 +0100 Message-ID: <871t3v25xe.fsf@russet.org.uk> References: <8760ta8amt.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87k2hn26zm.fsf@russet.org.uk> <580a842e-d2f3-49c1-80f7-0dd78d04870a@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1466178609 21564 80.91.229.3 (17 Jun 2016 15:50:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 17 17:49:59 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bDw1r-0002Uh-Fk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:49:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58539 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDw1q-0007WL-MY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDvef-0001z4-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:25:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDveZ-0001YT-Dv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:25:56 -0400 Original-Received: from cloud103.planethippo.com ([31.216.48.48]:57365) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDveZ-0001XU-2w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:25:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=russet.org.uk; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=KNXptOEBF+zyrdDE/CSk6MaCXX8IMT7mVXeYpFG93mY=; b=bH7rmi7gHztUycj9tdsu8ezpYt LfbECYveE0Z2382xspadY2+tMcFcMKgmJ2FphYgtLecDXhxl+dNhNQ+WPhlonA0syr+SFEYpfCNDt 1PPSZkp5TKDD4rj+B1tdWayyUeRFbJkknX96meS+7GjQTbAZTQg1N1vSffpNSJIZoKYER14ipp12m d7tcYHC15YRap5JpxaRDNVbCuCJ82ozplh905qaVtO69uTIIkTcUynTMx8Rjr0Yta7X5xrcjjmKVT scqFnlShIO9IPYYpC5I48BSuexymscyR4Pig53Hil5d+lkikFqWfdD4SX6Xm3g4fHV5LHEb76KZlF I9adCfMA==; Original-Received: from janus-nat-128-240-225-60.ncl.ac.uk ([128.240.225.60]:32385 helo=russet.org.uk) by cloud103.planethippo.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from ) id 1bDveX-000c5h-SH; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <580a842e-d2f3-49c1-80f7-0dd78d04870a@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:13:25 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cloud103.planethippo.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnu.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - russet.org.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cloud103.planethippo.com: authenticated_id: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk X-Authenticated-Sender: cloud103.planethippo.com: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 31.216.48.48 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:204448 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> >> Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled. >> >> Or am I missing something? >> > >> > Backtraces include byte-code for code that was compiled. They >> > should not. Rather, it should at least be possible for a user >> > or a program to elide the byte-code in a backtrace. >> >> Sure, but in this case the byte-code hides everything of use. >> I can't see any reason *why* they are byte compiled. > > Yes, sorry if I was not clear. There are two things that could > be improved: > > 1. The issue you raised, which is whether or not test code should > be byte-compiled. I'll try turning it off and see what happens! Seems to be the quickest way to find the answer. Phil