From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master f0b0105: Hoist some byte-code checking out of eval Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 09:35:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200520062521.6783.95407@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200520062523.3EF4A20AEB@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <51264591-6e62-e2df-2571-181679fc90f9@cs.ucla.edu> <1c3cc533-b2d9-9e37-6721-bef935a94761@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="37057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 21 15:36:46 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jblNJ-0009OT-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:36:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48694 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jblNI-0008V1-Lz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:36:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jblMj-0007fs-SB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:44437) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jblMg-0005pu-KU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E766A8083B; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21A7D80745; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:35:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1590068159; bh=vOcj+56m0/gndoVzHd3MRzWQvY73gAyqAB7SaQ8/Pko=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aOLA2ssj+6VSVMxMe3s7i7dt8mIHL0t4mcOi/WbrIZ9DXPIXMUL7RMAaBQaEJ6R6k 25HFz7JgSCWA1XAdcFQQIQgAti3aa2hJLr7VHKPNrHE4Hd1G0qSEhadIo784MUh24/ NrSLbca7P519WP9r1i83cSQDpmEhxUy0Os9T4e9pja6lE/rsLVc28L8b7UI2uFTDwX P1OutudObevkmZo9buPhyzWhXNdoqN4xUR96ki8P0Iq+oT0LbYtVkXiBJQjVxUoM7G 4RmlO2GQYRPDkRHCP7tv8yre+xJpDgZVaqz2JDFj0S/lL2cESF8pgoXgLjmJa0ioS1 oNgUbLFIu2Rig== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.27.250]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D61B012027A; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:35:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1c3cc533-b2d9-9e37-6721-bef935a94761@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 22:26:48 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/21 09:36:01 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:251167 Archived-At: > Oh, now that you mention it I do see something missing: Fbyte_code converts > bytestr to unibyte whereas Fmake_byte_code merely checks that bytestr is > unibyte, and I suppose it should be consistent with Fbyte_code here. I'll > look into fixing that. This should matter only when dealing with Emacs > 20.2-and-older bytecode strings (do we still need to worry about that?). > > You wrote "*some* .. but not all", which vaguely implies that I was missing > more than one check. Am I missing something else here? I just saw that the checks were not textually the same (I expected basically "exactly" the same code to be duplicated to `Fbyte_code` and `make-byte-code`; not sure if `Ffetch_bytecode` also needs some of that treatment). Stefan