[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compile issues
Re: Compile issues
Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:29:40 +0100
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)
address@hidden (Daniel Pfeiffer) writes:
> What "??"?
Because it doesn't appear to be true.
>> > Infos are all kinds of bla, like something creating a directory, or makepp
>> > telling you it's reading a makefile. You can go to these things if you
>> > want, but that's not normally required. If you generally want to go to
>> > these, set the threshold as described in NEWS.
>> That's not at all obvious, especially as it seems to be contradicted
>> by examples in compilation.txt (at least `gnu' and `ibm' entries).
> "Function foo is not referenced." is debatable. Could be it's new,
> intended for a library or in a module bound to various executables.
> Could be dead code of course. There is no way a simple parser can
> be more intelligent about messages than the emitter. If they say
> it's only info, I have to believe them.
It is a message from the compiler which would correspond to a gcc
-Wall warning as far as I know. As I said, it doesn't correspond to
the explanation above of what an `info' message is. Please document
clearly what the criteria are.
> Thanks for the tip, I'll add this. Do you have a convrete example?
Not off hand.
> Ok, first thing: when Python is used non interactively, e.g. from within
> its messages are covered Afaict.
File "foo.py", line 10
aren't, and ones with `files' like `<string>' shouldn't be.
As far as I know, there isn't a distinction between command-line and
REPL messages, but I'm not an expert.
>> If you load into a REPL and get errors, you
>> want to be able to jump to the source.
> The optional "comint" arg to compile essentially already does this.
Not as I read its doc. It appears to start a new process, not send to
an existing one.
>> This isn't specific to Python,
>> though Python makes it harder than it might be.
> What's so hard about the Python messages?
It's not the messages per se, it's input to the REPL that's
non-trivial. However, that means that file names and line numbers in
tracebacks need transforming to find the source, and that no longer
seems to be possible unless I edit the comint output directly.
> Definitely an issue. I had looked at their many changes to this mode, and
> copied some, e.g. symbolic names for the regexps. I copied them in when I
> published this, but they never reacted.
I didn't mean Emacs should follow XEmacs or waste time trying to
cooperate with XEmacs maintainers. I was commenting on what people
supporting external code are faced with, even for different versions
of Emacs 21.
Re: Compile issues, Daniel Pfeiffer, 2004/04/01
Re: Compile issues, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/02