[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#33602: 27.0.50; Compiling no file at

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: bug#33602: 27.0.50; Compiling no file at
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 20:06:59 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 21:52:48 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:27:07 +0000
> > Cc: Glenn Morris <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> >   address@hidden
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>

> > Yes.  cl--generic-get-dispatcher calls byte-compile directly.  It calls
> > it on a generated lambda form.  Do we still need to do this nowadays?  I
> > thought the byte compiler had been enhanced to detect and compile such
> > forms automatically.

> I'd ask a different question altogether: now that we know this comes
> from loading generics, why is that entry in compilation log a problem?
> Who cares what the byte compiler says as part of its normal operation,
> and why should we consider that "a bug"?

I still think it's a problem.  It irritates people.

The actual wording of the message "Compiling no file at <time>" is
unclear.  Certainly to a German speaker, it reads identically to "Not
compiling a file at <time>" - why are we reporting on what we're not
doing?  What's really meant is "compiling something, but it's not in a

The message is not in response to a user action - it's Emacs's internal
processing.  The user requested a file to be loaded, not compiled.

The message is content free.  It fails to identify what's being
compiled.  (This could be fixed easily in bytecomp.el.)

Guessing from Markus (the OP)'s post, it seems that the *Compile-Log*
buffer is the current buffer at start up time.  Who needs that?

So, yes, I think it's a bug.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]