[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: replacing ldefs-boot.el

From: Phillip Lord
Subject: Re: replacing ldefs-boot.el
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:19:05 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:
>> I have no idea what percentage of those commits are actually necessary
>> -- the unfortunate reality is that you can only test this with a full
>> bootstrap build which is something that most developers do rarely.
> My guess is that with the smaller ldefs-boot-auto it will be necessary
> more often. But maybe not enough to matter, hard to say.

Actually, it should be *necessary* exactly as often as now. We need a
certain number of autoloads to bootstrap. Both ldefs-boot-auto and
ldefs-boot provide these. But ldefs-boot provides many more as well.

The differnce is that when regenerating ldefs-boot-auto.el, we (should)
only get changes that really are necessary.

>>> I notice several almost duplicated lines in ldefs-boot-auto.el, like
>>> (autoload 'byte-compile "bytecomp" nil nil nil)
>>> (autoload 'byte-compile "bytecomp" nil nil t)
>>> byte-compile isn't a macro; I think you should put your addition to
>>> Fautoload_do_load after the "if (EQ (macro_only, Qmacro))" check to
>>> avoid falsely identifying macros.
>> Yeah, that's a screw up, thanks for picking this up.
>> I don't understand the semantics of the macro_only parameter, at all,
>> nor what that if statement is doing, but I'll try this fix.
> I think the value of FUNDEF tells you whether it's a macro, the
> macro_only parameter just says to do nothing for non-macros.

I changed my condition to this:

      Lisp_Object kind = Fnth (make_number (4), fundef);
      if (! (EQ (kind, Qt) || EQ (kind, Qmacro)))
          fprintf(stderr, "nil");
          fprintf(stderr, "t");

which seems to work.

>>> And doesn't this change in Makefile.in break parallel 'make bootstrap'
>>> invocations?
>>> -bootstrap: bootstrap-clean
>>> +bootstrap: bootstrap-clean bootstrap-build
>>> +
>>> +bootstrap-build:
>> Does it? bootstrap-clean and bootstrap-build cannot be run in parallel
>> anyway.
> Right. And I think the definitions you put would let make run them in
> parallel, thus breaking things.

bootstrap: | bootstrap-clean bootstrap-build



reply via email to

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