Re: replacing ldefs-boot.el

[Noam Postavsky]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Phillip Lord
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Disadvantages:
>>>
>>>  - generating ldefs-boot-auto is a lot slower (i.e. cp loaddefs.el
>>>    ldefs-boot.el vs a complete bootstrap build of Emacs).
>>>
>>
>> Is it possible another disadvantage would be that ldefs-boot-auto
>> requires regeneration more often (because the list of autoloads used
>> is more precise)?
>
>
> No, I don't think that this is the case. ldefs-boot.el is actually
> regenerated regularly IIUC (I think Glenn does it on a cron job; or he
> gets up specially at 6am on the first of every month). And it changes
> each time since it reflects changes in any autoloads any where in Emacs
> (nearly), including things like documentation changes.

Oh, I didn't notice the frequency, I somehow had the impression it
just done as needed.

>
> 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.

>
>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.