From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8302: 23.3; Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 23:18:12 -0300 Message-ID: References: <19846.25352.41735.981075@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1305771556 27582 80.91.229.12 (19 May 2011 02:19:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 02:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ulrich Mueller , 8302@debbugs.gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 19 04:19:07 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspP-0003AK-Da for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 04:19:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46040 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspO-0002Jt-OE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60935) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspM-0002Jg-A6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspL-0008RJ-A2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51272) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspL-0008RF-8i for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QMspK-0002iB-Ji; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 02:19:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8302 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 8302-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8302.130577150210375 (code B ref 8302); Thu, 19 May 2011 02:19:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8302) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 May 2011 02:18:22 +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 1QMsog-0002hH-Ms for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QMsoe-0002h5-RY for 8302@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:18:21 -0400 Original-Received: from 121-249-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.249.121]:52489 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMsoZ-0003HO-Be; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:18:15 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id CFFA46621E; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:18:12 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Wed, 18 May 2011 21:35:28 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:19:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:46578 Archived-At: > So I think we can get rid of the "some_machine" lisp distinction. > Does anyone see a problem with that? If it works correctly, that's great. Eliminating the shortlisp-vs-lisp duplication would be the next logical step. Stefan