|
| From: | Artur Malabarba |
| Subject: | Re: Solving some specific warnings (was: Fixing compilation and byte-compilation warnings before 25.1) |
| Date: | Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:57:26 +0000 |
On 14 Nov 2015 6:49 pm, "daniel sutton" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much for the response Artur. I actually saw someone post a link to a blog post of yours about the using # before lambdas today as well (just saying that your contributions are passed around the community and are much appreciated).
That's nice to know. ☺
> I can add (with-no-warnings (recursive-call-to-deprecated-args-list ...)...) calls to the warnings of this type. However, do you have any thoughts about trying to modify the declare statements? I wasn't sure if we could have the compiler check if it was being called from within the actual original definition of a function and therefore be smart enough to not issue a warning,
Should be possible, and I almost agree with it. The problem is that there are (unfortunately) some pretty long functions in core, so I can perfectly imagine someone editing a signature and forgetting to change a function call inside the same function.
Besides, recursive calls like this one are sparse enough that it should be OK to just suppress warnings on them when the sig changes.
> if we could add some type of declaration that this is the core so the warnings are not for us.
> My hesitation are that some of these might be heavy handed and might make the core more brittle as time goes on and no warnings are issued when things change more.
Precisely. The core is large, it is managed by lots of people and it is edited by even more people. So this warning does very much apply to core on many cases. There are no warnings that we can safely disable as a whole in core.
> I see that with-no-warnings is defined like this:
>...
> I see nothing that obviously suppresses warnings, so it seems like the interpreter checks to see if it is inside of this environment.
No. The compiler checks. The interpreter doesn't throw warnings. That's why the definition is so trivial. This function is treated specially by the compiler.
> Could we change the [compiler] to check if its running inside of a function with a (declare (advertised-calling-convention (signature) "version")) and issue no warnings about advertised-calling-convention violations?
Probably. I'm not against this, but I wouldn't go through the effort either. I'm also not sure if it's a good idea because we have some really large functions running around.
> Lots of rambling and words there but mundane problems can have interesting solutions. Thanks so much and I hope you're having a great weekend.
No problem. The weekend was nice enough that I forgot to reply to you yesterday. 😀
Best,
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |