From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master b2416d2c029 4/6: Don't load comp when installing an existing trampoline Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:35:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <169952969842.2327.17551267288789292121@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20231109113503.9890EC0C198@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14420"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 16 09:36:21 2023 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 1r3XrI-0003Z7-PH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 09:36:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r3XqD-0005Ux-LM; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:35:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r3XqB-0005UC-Kj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:35:11 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r3Xq7-0005oP-O3; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:35:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=ru1GliTdVyoeCZAmZkafUTK1AzM7kUe90QIEyE3xZnk=; b=ijUekiLxQ38AkubcvXnQ oI/QLjrWZ0ygR7Z2StrruiyMBGf8NxqR0Iij41HOKK/1U8Gmhnlc304qLR2tPYL47KoV3g3+DBGqu eiPXbOkW971yN6CSMMwKA+R1+0Dmcx6BHDlwEYxCZY8yi+PBSV2ibOaSYceFPVPqsJ7cdmiMaups4 GO7NiXbyjyoPlLPiOx2Einc2vlUq6PO1znIV72tRwF5CnDq6NhDkSvQTmQaaUJ1B9ggav5JsL+YVF cHfZKI8a7kCIpMEbVs2NH9t+VPzr4LGPNXpf4uiLpWh17pwGWBEiqHi+efWSxPDVFpYRpSkHnWyQr t3sbIV2yBpt+Ug==; Original-Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r3Xq7-0004vP-GO; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:35:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:07:15 -0500") X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:312787 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> - The `declare-function` should be moved to right after (require >>> 'comp-run), i.e. when we do know that the function should be available >>> and it will thus silence only spurious warnings. >> >> Ack will do, out of curiosity what is the downside of having the >> declare-function at top level? I thought is there to silence a compile >> time warning (and thus the branch is inserted in should not play a >> role). > > If you call that function from elsewhere in the file, there will be no > compilation warning, even though the call may error at run time because > `comp-run` wasn't loaded. > > By moving the `declare-function` you make sure only those warnings that > you know for sure are spurious (because we just did `(require > 'comp-run)`) will get silenced. Thanks for the explaination, done. >> As mentioned in the other thread I fear I don't remeber the answer to >> those quesitons. The best we can do is to remove the call and test >> Emacs to find if there's still a good reason. > > Then let's remove it in `master`. This way, if it's needed we'll get to > see why/when and we'll be able to at the very least add a good comment, > or maybe replace it with a better solution. Ack, I'll try it before in my machine and push it if I see no regressions here. Thanks Andrea