[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: suppressing byte-compiler warnings about undefined functions
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: suppressing byte-compiler warnings about undefined functions |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:32:21 -0800 |
Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hi, Dan!
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:51:24AM -0800, Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
> > > Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:55:08PM -0500, Glenn Morris wrote:
> >
> > > > > Here's an attempt at a method to allow for suppressing of
> > > > > byte-compiler warnings about undefined functions.
> >
> > > > > I haven't yet written the function to check that functions are
> > > > > actually defined in the specified files, but I imagine it would
be
> > > > > straightforward.
> >
> > > > As a matter of interest, there has been this sort of functionality
> > > > in cc-bytecomp.el (written by Martin Stjernholm) for some time.
In
> > > > particular, `cc-bytecomp-defun' and `cc-bytecomp-defvar', whose
> > > > prime use is suppressing compiler warnings.
> >
> > > What is the advantage of (cc-bytecomp-defvar VARIABLE) over plain
> > > (defvar VARIABLE)?
> >
> > You can have the variable "defined" solely for the duration of the
> > byte-compilation. This is useful for `xemacs-foo' and `gnu-emacs-bar'
> > if your file.el is portable. It's useful for core Emacs
> > variables/functions defined in a file which isn't currently loaded.
>
> But that is not different from plain defvar, it just seems to add
> a layer of obfuscation...
In fact most cc-bytecomp-defvars are not useful. I removed all of them
and recompiled. Only filladapt-*, c-syntactic-* and
c-preprocessor-face-name got warnings.
Re: suppressing byte-compiler warnings about undefined functions, Alan Mackenzie, 2007/11/11