Re: Towards a cleaner build

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:

> This makes sense, but it should come for free. There's never any point
> in issuing a warning about not using the advertised calling convention
> from inside the function itself. Similarly, we shouldn't issue
> warnings about calls to obsolete functions from bodies of functions
> that are themselves obsolete.

Yes, both of those things makes total sense, I think.

>> But there's other things you may want to disable warnings about that
>> perhaps won't be that easy to express, so `with-no-warnings' seems more
>> focused and convenient...
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/4837 "with-fewer-warnings ?" talks about
> adding something even more focused than with-no-warnings.

`with-no-warnings' is a pretty blunt instrument; yes.  Stefan and Glenn
(in that thread) suggests the super-specific

  (with-suppressed-warnings
      '((obsolete read-file-name-predicate ...))
    body)

form, which makes sense to me.

Would implementing this stuff be difficult, I wonder?  I've never had
much of a gander at the byte compilation stuff.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no