npostavs@users.sourceforge.net writes:

> Alex <agrambot@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The segfault appears to have been because I didn't wipe out the elc
>> files when testing different implementations.
>
> I suspect getting a segfault might indicate an actual bug somewhere.

Probably, but I can't reproduce it anymore since I got rid of the
offending .elc files.

>> I spent a lot longer than I'd like to admit finding this out. Is there a
>> reason why "make clean" in the test directory doesn't wipe out elc
>> files? I don't understand why there's a separate bootstrap-clean that
>> does this. Can this and TEST_LOAD_EL please be documented in the test
>> README?
>
> I think it was basically copied from the other Makefiles, where cleaning
> all elc files would mean a very long subsequent compilation.  It might
> make sense to break the pattern for the test/ subdirectory though.

That makes sense to me, but if others disagree then the behaviour being
documented is the next best thing.

>> Anyway, I got everything back in order. Sadly, there's a couple extra
>> tests that now fail for me in the patch that *doesn't* expand inline
>> functions, and these don't fail for me in a clean master. They are in
>> eieio-tests (23 and 24).
>
> I'm seeing eieio-tests failing also in master.  This seems to be an
> actual bug, in the definition of `cl-typep' I think.  I've opened a new
> bug for this (Bug#27718).

Oddly enough, I can't reproduce this on master. I cloned a new copy, ran
"./autogen.sh && ./configure && make -j4", then ran "make eieio-tests
TEST_LOAD_EL=no" with no error. I cloned from 30444c695, then tried
again with 7a0fb008. I also tried "make check-expensive TEST_LOAD_EL=no"
and got only 2 errors (dom-tests and cl-lib-tests).

Perhaps odder is that I can still reproduce your recipe in Bug#27718 in
that same repository.

>> With the inline expansion, I also get some errors in ert-tests. All of
>> the errors, with the exception of subr-tests error, seem to be from
>> cl-defstruct and cl-typep (which is defined by define-inline).
>>
>> Do you have any ideas? There should be 5 unexpected errors without the
>> inline expansion, and 6 errors with it. Note that all tests pass in both
>> cases without "TEST_LOAD_EL=no".
>>
>> If it's easy to fix the eieio tests and not the other ones, then it
>> might be better to leave the inline-function expansion out for now.
>
> I have a fix for the subr-tests failed, as for the others, I don't know
> enough about the compilation process to untangle it yet.  I think we
> should just leave the inline-function expansion part out for now, at
> which point I believe your patch won't be making anything worse, so it
> should be okay to install.

Sounds good. It would be lucky if a fix to Bug#27718 also resolves the
other inline function errors so that we could use the previous patch.
Here's an updated patch with inline function excluded: