From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why and not "config.h" ? Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:35:09 +0200 Message-ID: <878w4wrrde.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87wrsgs5t3.fsf@telefonica.net> <87y6cwz6bq.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87sk34s2ws.fsf@telefonica.net> <4C4FCE87.4090600@swipnet.se> <87iq40rtn3.fsf@telefonica.net> <4C4FD6FD.1020105@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1280302567 12473 80.91.229.12 (28 Jul 2010 07:36:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:36:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 28 09:36:03 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe1BK-0006BL-DS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:36:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51621 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oe1BI-00014e-7B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:36:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40665 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oe1An-00013Y-TT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:35:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe1Am-00012v-Fi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:35:29 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:39969) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe1Am-00012l-3g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:35:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe1Ah-0005kh-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:35:23 +0200 Original-Received: from 83.42.13.171 ([83.42.13.171]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:35:23 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 83.42.13.171 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:35:23 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 62 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.42.13.171 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:RJvMDDbsuANgrkFyIQzrRXist98= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:127918 Archived-At: Jan Djärv writes: >> As explained above, if the .elc files are corrupted by a buggy Emacs or >> a buggy Emacs ends using healthy .elc files, by sharing the produced >> .elc/.el files among several builds you are hiding a bug. Mixing the >> products of different builds is never a good idea. > > Didn't you read what I wrote? Out-of-tree builds use the *SAME* elc > files, those located in the tree. Adding another out-of-tree build > does not remake the elc-files. That is one of the strong reasons to > use out-of -tree builds for different configurations. Yes, I read what you wrote. It seems that you are not trying to understand what I say, though. The fact that several builds share the same .elc files is, precisely, a potential source of problems. If you can't see that, well, lucky you, because then it is clear that you never experienced a problem caused by a setup like that. > BTW, I used Emacs for more than 20 years and have yet to see a > corrupted elc-file. Corrupted in any sense? Is the byte compiler so robust that it never miscompiled an .el file on 20 years? >>> Considering that<> enables a real use-case and "" does not, and the >>> fact that using "" gives exactly no benefits what so ever, please >>> stick to<>. It is not even less to type. I can't imagine any reason >>> for switching now. >> >> Maybe is my hideous English, but as explained on my original message<> >> is giving me problems with some tool. > > Some code analysis tools is too vague. Are you suggesting that I'm making up the issue? Or maybe the issue is irrelevant to you because it doesn't affect the tools you use? > We are building Emacs right now out-of-tree. No, you are building on a mixed setup, both out of tree and in-tree. Anyways, if you are building out of tree, there is no problem with the change because, as Miles explained, the angle brackets are used precisely for supporting simultaneous out of tree and in-tree builds. Removing the angle brackets is no problem for simultaneous out of tree builds. > If you are going to impose a change on that process again just after > it was changed recently, you have to come up with something better > than that. Here we go again. No matter how small is the change one proposes, somebody will extract terrible cosequences from it, or refuse to evaluate the benefits dismissing it as useless, or both. > As for the gcc thing, that is intentional, it is how it is > supposed to work. Yes, I know, I was caught there. AFAIK the algorithm used by GCC assumes that angle brackets are for system headers.