From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6996: Acknowledgement (`byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they?) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:30:23 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283931925 10509 80.91.229.12 (8 Sep 2010 07:45:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:45:25 +0000 (UTC) To: 6996@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 08 09:45:24 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1OtFLO-00054h-EB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:45:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47587 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OtFLM-0004K9-T1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:45:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42917 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OtFGw-0001vh-QA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:40:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtFGr-0001HE-03 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:40:41 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtFGq-0001H6-MN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:40:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtF5Z-0007r3-M8; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:29:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: MON KEY Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:29:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6996 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 6996-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6996.128393090730184 (code B ref 6996); Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6996) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Sep 2010 07:28:27 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtF51-0007qn-5T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:28:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtF4z-0007qi-Ey for 6996@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:28:25 -0400 Original-Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so6840413wyi.3 for <6996@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.53.19 with SMTP id f19mr384595wec.22.1283931023185; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.65.140 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: MD3PC51WJMhTVCRyj9Ff2Wq3XTw X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:29:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:40032 Archived-At: > I have no idea what it does, If you don't I doubt few others do either, maybe Jim Blandy? > but since it is not on by default since 1991, That's nearly 20 years ago! > and is not documented anywhere, I don't see it as a bug if it > doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do. Its a bug b/c bytecomp.el exposes/provides it. > At the worst it is dead code that could be deleted. At the very least there must be _some_ reason the code has persisted... Hence, my tepid curiosity. -- /s_P\