From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Certain numbers of special forms cause changing behaviour on function calls in --batch Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:47:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87mvluomaz.fsf@web.de> References: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> <834m8cvu9p.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9cbpw61.fsf@web.de> <83wpl7v1sg.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8i2dfe3.fsf@web.de> <83poqyvh58.fsf@gnu.org> <87shvu1ixp.fsf@web.de> <8360spvn6i.fsf@gnu.org> <8760sjn5me.fsf@web.de> <871t37n51y.fsf@web.de> <8337nmon4l.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467817164 7053 80.91.229.3 (6 Jul 2016 14:59:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: me@wilfred.me.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 06 16:59:15 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 1bKoIE-0000pD-H7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:59:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34013 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKoID-0003H0-QG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:59:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47367) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKo7M-0006Zm-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:48:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKo7G-0008Mr-G0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:47:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:53854) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKo7G-0008Ml-61; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:47:54 -0400 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([88.67.73.210]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3jsn-1bcL6C4AqX-00rGVU; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:47:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8337nmon4l.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 06 Jul 2016 17:30:02 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2iy/3pMrK6sJmpHBxRMOg4Xcso3BR0L3kz0RCLS3TWfRmLI2qsa KycYOSmyUHjHgjiF5dz7VamehE7GujW3URsqeUmKjJQ5r8GezpOrxZnta2qcmy93GY2CWKG pInAlM+i6ThHMvmXbkvNG1d+Df0y3IHPxYCP1JMLsPj0NGyh2xfRIEGmj1cs0cQYNyhiK6s EjyxZBux9/h45gA+a2pFQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:xgYxCDO+Or8=:ogTRnQ/OXwOlGofmVEtxc7 RF/KEwjGuhGkNtTxL0zqOA9jrIRwXqlb936KFVUzT4SSKc/c4ymqIZ6D9Qh9mwhdyZ4C21pe/ XqREVf/8TmvZb7izZL6i8oq8Chjmk7g/IZS6HvxnC4GCzHqSRwkqQh78EbzhHAvPwKY14ndEX VG1xTgoO/bsmanTqK1X92RCmeuda3AEXaflRtVx98SDGIn0nR7gAMAze9vS1sopD9lt4k3Gbk gx5nIS3GQiorJMIduAAJwHrAAGPdd+nDZ1Lx2bVdShXFCTS3eGZpaq2diniJzo9h+pYIA0WsS QZZVQYj57XCrCNOM8izrrTcvpv4joHLeABU0cH85IlkFxk8znNBM4fNvVEt2BTKzPNClHRKKc Sb5vE31s5DncFNC2rx3e+43uUu4uagyhVnqR+bYl+VVJGqmH+ahToKtEL7lBqprLLwPFccIGI 3x1TZ4ssjXFVX1PvDsYDmqO4P7mLDP9CJQEuFXl+2Vl2AUeFoWnBeNFcmiBsiVeavncfeNl1l 37nLlpZHkvFXGAwPkM4LuzDHTaMQ0LyMmvOQDULrO+SnzY90TQK9Zm70B5q8keEODk35h+Tot OK69AgglbGNc6OgnXrMnF723YwxapPX3NdBZkpjtyJya3eqSbKAxdSACRFQgg/pgfr08VH5bu ZrIy5L3bExfngLN7Y2/yOBc/x/Pyj8J1MsUwMIIFPonPboegl4AaabhK9t6zSJMezvGdeGQWl tO/91OPpypLboPN0pkvJBNzr0fZGLH8drlFF3zsYigvGGuZ8dVIX6VPCbTs7ChFhAqBuABu5 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.4 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:205254 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Did the experiments with the compiled simple.elc load it into a > running session, or did you re-dump Emacs after byte-compiling > simple.el? No, I was lazy and loaded it into the running session. I can repeat the test with re-dumping if you think it could change the behavior. Note: when I (re-)loaded the "original" simple.elc into the batch session, there was no change (i.e. I still got the "buggy" result of 20). Only loading the compiled (trivially) modified simple library into the batch session had an effect (of "fixing" the issue and producing the "nonbuggy" value of 10). > What other practical alternatives are there? I have no idea. Michael.