[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: next steps.

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: next steps.
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:43:32 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1

On 12/11/18 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Let's just assume we can get a list of functions from somewhere.
Exactly how is a minor implementation detail.  I only suggested objdump
to demonstrate it was possible and easy.  I think the C compiler, any C
compiler, can generate cross references.  That would be another source
of the info.

I'm afraid that many C compilers don't generate cross references, and that this is not a minor implementation detail that we can assume away.

That's OK, if the cost is borne only by people who want accurate
diagnostics. People who want compilation speed can simply turn off the
accurate-diagnostics flag.
WHAT????  There is no such flag, will be no such flag, MUST be no such
flag.  We give accurate diagnostics to EVERYBODY, and we do this FAST.

That would be nice, but if we can't do it quickly (without significant slowdowns elsewhere, or major contortions to the code) then perhaps we'll have to settle for accurate diagnostics as an option.

The byte compiler is well over 8000 lines of code, much, possibly most, of which would need to be rewritten

Although it would not be trivial to modify 8000 lines of code in a tedious but mostly-systematic way, that is not what I would call an enormous project. For perspective, the Emacs patch I'm currently hacking on (in a different area) is currently about 3000 lines and I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled before it's done. Sometimes even reasonably-minor conceptual changes require many tedious changes to the source code; that's just life when hacking.

I suggest you take on the task yourself, or organise a team

Thanks, but this issue is not that high on my priority list.

people writing macros don't have to and mustn't have
to care about diagnostic mechanisms.  Lisp hackers deserve to get the
best diagnostics without any such ugly compromises being made.

As I understand it these annotations are not simply concessions to limitations of our location implementation; they also provide information that are useful for other reasons. I'm still not seeing examples of why it would be hard for users to provide the optional annotations, if they want the corresponding advantages.

reply via email to

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