From unknown Sat Aug 16 23:39:39 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#10637 <10637@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#10637 <10637@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file doesn't say which one was then used Reply-To: bug#10637 <10637@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 06:39:39 +0000 retitle 10637 Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file doesn't say w= hich one was then used reassign 10637 emacs submitter 10637 jidanni@jidanni.org severity 10637 wishlist tag 10637 fixed thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 29 01:02:43 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jan 2012 06:02:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42829 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqd-00072H-4E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:43 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59376) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqX-000721-6d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqO-0000az-Vu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:35123) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqO-0000av-UQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:28 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55767) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqO-0003cW-38 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqL-0000al-HR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:27 -0500 Received: from caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.81]:36893 helo=homiemail-a4.g.dreamhost.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrNqL-0000ah-AP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:02:25 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a4.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a4.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BFD51C070 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:02:22 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=jidanni.org; h=from:to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=jidanni.org ; b=RfMGnOGqsshqBAf1w0uqylPA3U00bpQOE2g/MUEpJ+/2KeUTOQ8xg6GEyZAn GehNUPMml5e+1cxmRhZ1zr6qWNvP/SuJiiyfr1f23zfQbU5fRzcJ4162a6bQbT0a xD6FCz0GWhvI5eXBV21pvB8lS+ZsWXWlovmBW7ctP/pGqGU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=jidanni.org; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= jidanni.org; bh=ugpUH1vlvE4JstrrvjAOU6NisBg=; b=gOMUXF2UJ98cb5VH BdDX6XYIAM+CVsCl7jkxAxRQ8PzjlQt3Crirj8sCYp2eySmEqirr6TppAlaSzuGK QynXU5+RMC943oaW2N3SREaAOfe2bPAdoPK9NOnPn9DIiMkzoRDbVS+mjCWlQPyR Qqwip/DvSoqnOdxY/LUsuQfa4A0= Received: from jidanni.org (218-174-211-117.dynamic.hinet.net [218.174.211.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jidanni@jidanni.org) by homiemail-a4.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 742D851C062 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:02:22 -0800 (PST) From: jidanni@jidanni.org To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file doesn't say which one was then used Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:02:20 +0800 Message-ID: <8739azkpw3.fsf@jidanni.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) The warning Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file isn't clear about which one ends up getting used. It should say Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using it. Wait, that isn't clear either. It should say Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using the former / or / using the latter / or something like that. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 03 13:01:37 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Feb 2012 18:01:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52543 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNS5-0007gg-8I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:01:37 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44608) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNS3-0007gR-6E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:01:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNRK-0000pi-O3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:56 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:46909) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNRK-0000pe-MQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:50 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48561) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNRJ-0007QA-Gc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNRI-0000p8-Gp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:49 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:42835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNRI-0000ow-8d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:48 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RtNR9-0005FC-M8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:00:39 +0100 Received: from c-71-237-25-24.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([71.237.25.24]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:00:39 +0100 Received: from kevin.d.rodgers by c-71-237-25-24.hsd1.co.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:00:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org From: Kevin Rodgers Subject: Re: bug#10637: Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file doesn't say which one was then used Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:01:23 -0700 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <8739azkpw3.fsf@jidanni.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-71-237-25-24.hsd1.co.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.26) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/3.1.18 In-Reply-To: <8739azkpw3.fsf@jidanni.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) On 1/28/12 11:02 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote: > The warning > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file > isn't clear about which one ends up getting used. > > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using it. > > Wait, that isn't clear either. > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using the former / or > / using the latter / or something like that. "using newer .el" or "using older .elc" -- Kevin Rodgers Denver, Colorado, USA From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 13 23:20:33 2019 Received: (at 10637) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Oct 2019 03:20:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37430 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquP-00073g-Hm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:20:33 -0400 Received: from [80.91.231.51] (port=46640 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquN-00073W-W1 for 10637@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:20:32 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquI-0000kz-Kk; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:20:29 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: jidanni@jidanni.org Subject: Re: bug#10637: Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file doesn't say which one was then used References: <8739azkpw3.fsf@jidanni.org> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:20:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8739azkpw3.fsf@jidanni.org> (jidanni@jidanni.org's message of "Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:02:20 +0800") Message-ID: <87o8ykrp1h.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: jidanni@jidanni.org writes: > The warning > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file > isn't clear about which one ends up getting used. > > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using it. > > W [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: jidanni@jidanni.org writes: > The warning > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file > isn't clear about which one ends up getting used. > > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using it. > > W [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: jidanni.org] 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10637 Cc: 10637@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) jidanni@jidanni.org writes: > The warning > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file > isn't clear about which one ends up getting used. > > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using it. > > Wait, that isn't clear either. > It should say > Source file `...' newer than byte-compiled file, using the former / or > / using the latter / or something like that. That's a good point. I realised that I wasn't 100% sure myself what Emacs actually does in these cases, but it seems like it's using the (older) .elc file. I've now made it say so. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 13 23:20:38 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Oct 2019 03:20:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37433 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquT-00073y-Px for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:20:38 -0400 Received: from [80.91.231.51] (port=46654 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquS-00073p-2x for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:20:36 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJquP-0000l8-D7 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:20:35 +0200 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:20:33 +0200 Message-Id: <87mue4rp1a.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #10637 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 10637 fixed close 10637 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 10637 fixed close 10637 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) tags 10637 fixed close 10637 27.1 quit From unknown Sat Aug 16 23:39:39 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:24:08 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator