From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andreas Schwab Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54AAC13A-CF56-4393-A932-DC6CBBF51259@raeburn.org> <3CC6BB36-1794-4202-8243-132E0345B236@raeburn.org> <52BDCC33-546C-4F47-A230-00EBC813B038@raeburn.org> <15CF14CC-C7DE-44BA-AC7D-F0BF1F160979@raeburn.org> <9463F91F-DB82-48E1-BE01-1E2BC8DA0766@raeburn.org> <831swxzbw8.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3z2wphb.fsf@gnu.org> <83tw9bb42m.fsf@gnu.org> <349ED8B9-C34B-495B-9FB5-E72CE6EFCA38@raeburn.org> <87inpni6xa.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <8360lmesso.fsf@gnu.org> <3B044D64-7C94-42D7-BE1B-7A9CA76C5A67@raeburn.org> <83k29xc49v.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1484391369 27106 195.159.176.226 (14 Jan 2017 10:56:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:56:09 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) Cc: Ken Raeburn , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 14 11:56:03 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cSM08-00067h-Er for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:56:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47351 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cSM0A-0006ll-1r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:56:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cSM03-0006lV-Gm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:55:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cSM02-0001Eh-SU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:55:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:56109) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cSLzz-0001Du-2d; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:55:51 -0500 Original-Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3v0xHQ3NCrz3hk9G; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:46 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.68]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3v0xHQ1v73zvkjT; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Original-Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.68]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOJDRXkZyZqe; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:44 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: E2nBD6jNf2SfcXAXP7szMoVWEorkQUrVvyBdrTSLDQ2JxWtyz/KCz60/6nY1MmNx Original-Received: from linux.local (ppp-88-217-30-182.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.30.182]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:44 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by linux.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 47B341E5484; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:55:42 +0100 (CET) X-Yow: Did you GAIN WEIGHT in th' past 5 MINUTES or am I just DREAMING of two BROCCOLI FLORETS lying in an empty GAS TANK? In-Reply-To: <83k29xc49v.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:41:32 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.18.0.10 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:211270 Archived-At: On Jan 14 2017, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The line number in the error message is bogus, it points to a require > line (that's a known issue with byte-compiler error reporting, I > think). It's not bogus, since the error was raised while the byte-compiler evaluated the form there. Lisp errors don't carry line number information so there isn't much the byte-compiler can do. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."