From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Aug 28 22:15:18 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Aug 2012 02:15:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XoL-0001OG-CV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:15:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46946) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XoJ-0001O9-64 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:15:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnI-0001VC-Nu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:13 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:50075) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnI-0001V8-Ks for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56438) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnH-0003ix-Sm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnG-0001Ul-Kn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:11 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:47254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnG-0001Uh-Hh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:10 -0400 Received: from adsl-68-77-23-91.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net ([68.77.23.91]:38441 helo=regnitz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T6XnF-0007mi-HY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:14:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:14:06 -0500 Message-Id: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> From: "Roland Winkler" To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments 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: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -7.1 (-------) 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: -7.1 (-------) cat > foo.el << EOF (defsubst foo (a b)) (foo t) EOF Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not complain that the inline function foo is called with too few arguments. Emacs 23.1 complains foo.el:2:1:Warning: attempt to open-code `anonymous lambda' with too few arguments till it aborts with foo.el:2:1:Error: Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size which I do not find very appropriate either. In GNU Emacs 24.1.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.1) of 2012-06-10 on regnitz Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10706000 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 16 18:47:03 2019 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Aug 2019 22:47:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55151 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hykzv-00078x-8t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:47:03 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:39344) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hykzs-00075z-Ki for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:47:01 -0400 Received: from [50.225.213.182] (helo=sandy) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hykzo-0001Tb-1c; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:46:59 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: "Roland Winkler" Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments References: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:46:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> (Roland Winkler's message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:14:06 -0500") Message-ID: <8736i0ohib.fsf@mouse.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: "Roland Winkler" writes: > cat > foo.el << EOF > (defsubst foo (a b)) > (foo t) > EOF > > Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not > complain that the inline function foo is called with too few argum [...] 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: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@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: -1.0 (-) "Roland Winkler" writes: > cat > foo.el << EOF > (defsubst foo (a b)) > (foo t) > EOF > > Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not > complain that the inline function foo is called with too few arguments. I can confirm that this bug is still present in Emacs 27, but it's weird that this hasn't come up more often. I mean, defsubsts are commonly used, and not having byte compilation warnings about the wrong number of arguments is something you'd expect to come up more often. > Emacs 23.1 complains > > foo.el:2:1:Warning: attempt to open-code `anonymous lambda' with > too few arguments > > till it aborts with > > foo.el:2:1:Error: Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size > > which I do not find very appropriate either. Nope. I tried briefly to follow the logic in the stuff that'd give a "attempt to open-code", but it doesn't seem to be triggered at all in this case. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 16 18:47:15 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Aug 2019 22:47:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55154 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hyl07-0007IE-JB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:47:15 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:39372) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hyl06-0007Gn-5A for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:47:14 -0400 Received: from [50.225.213.182] (helo=sandy) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hyl03-0001Tl-0D for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:47:13 +0200 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:47:07 -0700 Message-Id: <871rxkohhw.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #12299 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 12299 + confirmed 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: 0.0 (/) 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: -1.0 (-) tags 12299 + confirmed quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 15 16:30:03 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Jul 2021 20:30:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m47zf-0000Ng-AC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:30:03 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:60778) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m47zc-0000M1-WF for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:30:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=RtU+QZgEb9Qy19ZLmJBZ25Sctm3ahPmLSi4VTTrq4m8=; b=L6zYtJSThj/fdwKL89cJ5zOFCM aHnzKRGhuiFfj4aS+0y0ixgv3257TdE06j1yULeo0DKnVJgDScKKOcbwcXOm9LXA/65GXzn2GqJGX +QnXDy0bZGonjaOkprbjuS0mAyqbBNhwhk6rf/OqrRIJxObeOj+jkAIVvb6u/OfJBDmk=; Received: from cm-84.212.220.105.getinternet.no ([84.212.220.105] helo=elva) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m47zT-0004gg-ND; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:29:54 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: "Roland Winkler" Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments References: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> X-Now-Playing: Gil Scott-Heron's _We're New Here (a Reimagining by Makaya McCraven)_: "Where Did the Night Go" Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:29:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> (Roland Winkler's message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:14:06 -0500") Message-ID: <87a6mnfhhc.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (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: "Roland Winkler" writes: > cat > foo.el << EOF > (defsubst foo (a b)) > (foo t) > EOF > > Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not > complain that the inline function foo is called with too few argum [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -3.3 (---) "Roland Winkler" writes: > cat > foo.el << EOF > (defsubst foo (a b)) > (foo t) > EOF > > Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not > complain that the inline function foo is called with too few arguments. This is still the case in Emacs 28, which is pretty surprising. (Both when doing dynamic and lexical compilation.) I've added Stefan to the CCs -- perhaps he has some comments here. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 16 11:40:11 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jul 2021 15:40:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52119 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m4Pwg-0002ei-PG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:40:11 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:16230) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m4PwQ-0002dh-FQ for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:40:09 -0400 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 87204100201; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 70C35100104; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:39:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1626449987; bh=ZK2xovQYolwhEufvZ6DGzY4XPZx1N6Cb1PrmfyvvC2A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=iHBorY4KeNWXtMZ3vSO/vsNLrkKhgz2fMOzkLHXzWx0JnaEpcTI5x8QKaQ4XCmQ3K R/JGpesEPEvYxZ7A1s1W1ExdJe/vAQkA35odsL5axLsY28PKWrO5bhtvI/m89PhWGX 00XYHvnVBl5801Yc0v75lockC53e6k80HqHbiwvEwmUw+Xy/FaXW8G+Gt0l4ZwTpm6 /XTg0WRsX0vAeCN21G2B7n6HZtDzCiKzaTIQgT5RPmCFtLxFlPoHuy0JsPYH4GGSAC CYc7FGLzXKR2iylMLu2dbcDB5cJfTMB5DDCVFIjj2JDjLBmbRmag4o5/3THMw3I6iQ 6zl3yahch2HSA== Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.29.138]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42CC9120476; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:39:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments Message-ID: References: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6mnfhhc.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:39:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a6mnfhhc.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:29:51 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.099 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Roland Winkler 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: -3.3 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen [2021-07-15 22:29:51] wrote: > "Roland Winkler" writes: >> cat > foo.el << EOF >> (defsubst foo (a b)) >> (foo t) >> EOF >> >> Byte-compile the above file. The Emacs 24.1 byte compiler does not >> complain that the inline function foo is called with too few arguments. > This is still the case in Emacs 28, which is pretty surprising. (Both > when doing dynamic and lexical compilation.) > I've added Stefan to the CCs -- perhaps he has some comments here. No particular comments, no. IIRC this part of the byte compiler is just not making efforts to detect such errors, indeed. It's probably not hard to fix. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 17 10:05:01 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jul 2021 14:05:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54400 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m4kw8-0001gF-SP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 10:05:01 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:51630) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m4kw7-0001g1-2O for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 10:04:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=NTr7D9kEND0a8RCQ+J/5GkvvW4nesx7P7b2GZYrkbCc=; b=YsU6jzY9DPhK6BZU5FAo1pBkPS 5MGlD7RRW6OJf4nu9AjMUTIW9B+n9JngHiw2WGuZPQrkmHYNQwOlYDxnChRUegZVSEUjCbvJFQKnO KS/T41teR1/X6k6DT/0EuS3ZLQcsY3QEX8JIeFOBJeYFu5+lOqPsOQAB71wvz1QtdWLw=; Received: from cm-84.212.220.105.getinternet.no ([84.212.220.105] helo=elva) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m4kvy-0007nF-8P; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:04:52 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments References: <87ligyqwb5.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6mnfhhc.fsf@gnus.org> X-Now-Playing: SOPHIE's _OIL OF EVERY PEARL'S UN-INSIDES_: "Immaterial" Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:04:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:39:46 -0400") Message-ID: <871r7x6npa.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (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: Stefan Monnier writes: > No particular comments, no. IIRC this part of the byte compiler is just > not making efforts to detect such errors, indeed. > It's probably not hard to fix. 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Roland Winkler 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: -3.3 (---) Stefan Monnier writes: > No particular comments, no. IIRC this part of the byte compiler is just > not making efforts to detect such errors, indeed. > It's probably not hard to fix. Right. Well, let's hope that somebody feels up to poking at this problem. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 22 09:15:05 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jul 2021 13:15:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39736 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6YXY-0000O1-Sz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:15:05 -0400 Received: from mail205c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.215]:46850 helo=mail193c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6YXV-0000Ki-Lv for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:15:03 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1626959699; bh=+NHTyoFvXktwXqvsXm6eL8icK6aYkdbGfOoVNemU4lQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:To:From; b=olWB+09xdE4k/J1q6R+igDRfu1aZlMpHr+mt21Hycrn0/xkYklzw1xY7WNl5mlYr3 wG4rLnObjatvW3cujWMkJQtNY0ljx/aEs5JAVOf2YzjuANk7YzUkRa7e0F9axSSgif pdHi3GLbn2RTuht6d9QTb/M/1ZwBWifE/alzzulQ= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from stanniol.lan (c-b952e353.032-75-73746f71.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.82.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail193c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 16MDEuCZ018589; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:14:57 +0000 From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8375DDF5-1C0B-4EA5-8FBA-AB73CFF00D26" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] Message-Id: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:14:55 +0200 To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier , Roland Winkler , 12299@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F1A.60F96F53.0027, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=GJV27dFK c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=von4qPfY+hyqc0zmWf0tYQ==:117 a=von4qPfY+hyqc0zmWf0tYQ==:17 a=Ve99FEDGdn45tTQE:21 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=WpZpJml17Ncj592GEZEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=xlqYxyXB9eQouYZ2f-QA:9 a=B2y7HmGcmWMA:10 a=RW9lQ-4mb-ULxO3qII2u:22 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) 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: Would this patch do? For some reason that I haven't investigated, the usual warning-suppression mechanisms seem ineffective for these warnings. I'm probably doing something wrong. Even so, it's better [...] Content analysis details: (4.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [91.136.10.215 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 3.7 FAKE_REPLY_B No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 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: 3.0 (+++) 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: Would this patch do? For some reason that I haven't investigated, the usual warning-suppression mechanisms seem ineffective for these warnings. I'm probably doing something wrong. Even so, it's better [...] Content analysis details: (3.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [91.136.10.215 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 3.7 FAKE_REPLY_B No description available. --Apple-Mail=_8375DDF5-1C0B-4EA5-8FBA-AB73CFF00D26 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Would this patch do? For some reason that I haven't investigated, the usual = warning-suppression mechanisms seem ineffective for these warnings. I'm = probably doing something wrong. Even so, it's better to have arity = checks that cannot be disabled than none at all. --Apple-Mail=_8375DDF5-1C0B-4EA5-8FBA-AB73CFF00D26 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Warn-about-arity-errors-in-inlining-calls-bug-12299.patch Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-unix-mode=0644; name="0001-Warn-about-arity-errors-in-inlining-calls-bug-12299.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =46rom=20cb9d873871eb445ad18b2a89f3c4ba7e6a4d3ef3=20Mon=20Sep=2017=20= 00:00:00=202001=0AFrom:=20=3D?UTF-8?q?Mattias=3D20Engdeg=3DC3=3DA5rd?=3D=20= =0ADate:=20Thu,=2022=20Jul=202021=2015:00:17=20+0200=0A= Subject:=20[PATCH]=20Warn=20about=20arity=20errors=20in=20inlining=20= calls=20(bug#12299)=0A=0AWrong=20number=20of=20arguments=20in=20inlining=20= function=20calls=20(to=20`defsubst`=20or=0Aexplicitly=20using=20= `inline`)=20did=20not=20result=20in=20warnings,=20or=20in=20very=0A= cryptic=20ones.=0A=0A*=20lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=20= (byte-compile-inline-expand):=20Add=20calls=0Ato=20= `byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode`.=0A*=20lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=20= (byte-compile-emit-callargs-warn)=0A= (byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode):=20New=20functions.=0A= (byte-compile-callargs-warn):=20Use=20factored-out=20function.=0A*=20= test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-resources/warn-callargs-defsubst.el:=0A*=20= test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=20("warn-callargs-defsubst.el"):=0A= New=20test=20case.=0A---=0A=20lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20|=20=205=20+-=0A=20= lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20|=2058=20+++++++++++++++----=0A=20.../warn-callargs-defsubst.el=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20|=20=205=20++=0A=20= test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20|=20=203=20= +=0A=204=20files=20changed,=2060=20insertions(+),=2011=20deletions(-)=0A=20= create=20mode=20100644=20= test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-resources/warn-callargs-defsubst.el=0A=0A= diff=20--git=20a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=20= b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=0Aindex=20341643c7d1..ad9f827171=20100644=0A= ---=20a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=0A+++=20= b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el=0A@@=20-274,6=20+274,7=20@@=20= byte-compile-inline-expand=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20((pred=20= byte-code-function-p)=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20(message=20= "Inlining=20byte-code=20for=20%S!"=20name)=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20= The=20byte-code=20will=20be=20really=20inlined=20in=20= byte-compile-unfold-bcf.=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= (byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode=20form=20fn)=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= `(,fn=20,@(cdr=20form)))=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20((or=20`(lambda=20.=20= ,_)=20`(closure=20.=20,_))=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20While=20= byte-compile-unfold-bcf=20can=20inline=20dynbind=20byte-code=20into=0A@@=20= -300,7=20+301,9=20@@=20byte-compile-inline-expand=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20surrounded=20the=20`defsubst'.=0A=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile-warnings=20nil))=0A=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile=20name))=0A-=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20`(,(symbol-function=20name)=20,@(cdr=20form))))=0A+=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20(let=20((bc=20(symbol-function=20name)))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode=20form=20bc)=0A+=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20`(,bc=20,@(cdr=20form)))))=0A=20=0A=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20(_=20;;=20Give=20up=20on=20inlining.=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= form))))=0Adiff=20--git=20a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=20= b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=0Aindex=202968f1af5d..a5cb5477d8=20100644=0A= ---=20a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=0A+++=20= b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el=0A@@=20-1477,6=20+1477,51=20@@=20= byte-compile-function-warn=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(push=20= (list=20f=20byte-compile-last-position=20nargs)=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20byte-compile-unresolved-functions)))))=0A=20=0A= +(defun=20byte-compile-emit-callargs-warn=20(name=20actual-args=20= min-args=20max-args)=0A+=20=20(byte-compile-set-symbol-position=20name)=0A= +=20=20(byte-compile-warn=0A+=20=20=20"%s=20called=20with=20%d=20= argument%s,=20but=20%s=20%s"=0A+=20=20=20name=20actual-args=0A+=20=20=20= (if=20(=3D=201=20actual-args)=20""=20"s")=0A+=20=20=20(if=20(<=20= actual-args=20min-args)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"requires"=0A+=20=20=20=20= =20"accepts=20only")=0A+=20=20=20(byte-compile-arglist-signature-string=20= (cons=20min-args=20max-args))))=0A+=0A+(defun=20= byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode=20(form=20bytecode)=0A+=20=20"Check=20= that=20the=20call=20in=20FORM=20matches=20that=20allowed=20by=20= BYTECODE."=0A+=20=20(when=20(and=20(byte-code-function-p=20bytecode)=0A+=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile-warning-enabled-p=20= 'callargs))=0A+=20=20=20=20(let*=20((desc=20(aref=20bytecode=200))=0A+=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(actual-args=20(length=20(cdr=20form)))=0A= +=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20min-args=20max-args)=0A+=20=20=20=20= =20=20(if=20(listp=20desc)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20Old-style=20= bytecode:=20decode=20the=20signature.=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(let=20= ((n=200))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20max-args=200)=0A+=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(while=20desc=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20(pcase=20(car=20desc)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= ('&optional=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20= min-args=20n)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20= desc=20(cdr=20desc)))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= ('&rest=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(unless=20= min-args=20(setq=20min-args=20n))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20(setq=20max-args=20nil)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20(setq=20desc=20nil))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= (_=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20max-args=20= (1+=20max-args))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20= n=20(1+=20n))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20= desc=20(cdr=20desc)))))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(unless=20= min-args=20(setq=20min-args=20n)))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20;;=20= Modern=20bytecode.=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20min-args=20(logand=20= desc=20127))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(setq=20max-args=20(and=20(=3D=20= (logand=20desc=20128)=200)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(ash=20desc=20-8))))=0A+=20=20=20=20= =20=20(when=20(or=20(<=20actual-args=20min-args)=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(and=20max-args=20(>=20actual-args=20= max-args)))=0A+=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile-emit-callargs-warn=0A= +=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(car=20form)=20actual-args=20min-args=20= max-args)))))=0A+=0A=20;;=20Warn=20if=20the=20form=20is=20calling=20a=20= function=20with=20the=20wrong=20number=20of=20arguments.=0A=20(defun=20= byte-compile-callargs-warn=20(form)=0A=20=20=20(let*=20((def=20(or=20= (byte-compile-fdefinition=20(car=20form)=20nil)=0A@@=20-1491,16=20= +1536,9=20@@=20byte-compile-callargs-warn=0A=20=09(setcdr=20sig=20nil))=0A= =20=20=20=20=20(if=20sig=0A=20=09(when=20(or=20(<=20ncall=20(car=20sig))=0A= -=09=09(and=20(cdr=20sig)=20(>=20ncall=20(cdr=20sig))))=0A-=09=20=20= (byte-compile-set-symbol-position=20(car=20form))=0A-=09=20=20= (byte-compile-warn=0A-=09=20=20=20"%s=20called=20with=20%d=20argument%s,=20= but=20%s=20%s"=0A-=09=20=20=20(car=20form)=20ncall=0A-=09=20=20=20(if=20= (=3D=201=20ncall)=20""=20"s")=0A-=09=20=20=20(if=20(<=20ncall=20(car=20= sig))=0A-=09=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"requires"=0A-=09=20=20=20=20=20= "accepts=20only")=0A-=09=20=20=20(byte-compile-arglist-signature-string=20= sig))))=0A+=09=09=20=20(and=20(cdr=20sig)=20(>=20ncall=20(cdr=20sig))))=0A= +=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile-emit-callargs-warn=0A+=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20(car=20form)=20ncall=20(car=20sig)=20(cdr=20= sig))))=0A=20=20=20=20=20(byte-compile-format-warn=20form)=0A=20=20=20=20= =20(byte-compile-function-warn=20(car=20form)=20(length=20(cdr=20form))=20= def)))=0A=20=0Adiff=20--git=20= a/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-resources/warn-callargs-defsubst.el=20= b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-resources/warn-callargs-defsubst.el=0A= new=20file=20mode=20100644=0Aindex=200000000000..3a29128cf3=0A---=20= /dev/null=0A+++=20= b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-resources/warn-callargs-defsubst.el=0A@@=20= -0,0=20+1,5=20@@=0A+;;;=20-*-=20lexical-binding:=20t=20-*-=0A+(defsubst=20= warn-callargs-defsubst-f1=20(_x)=0A+=20=20nil)=0A+(defun=20= warn-callargs-defsubst-f2=20()=0A+=20=20(warn-callargs-defsubst-f1=201=20= 2))=0Adiff=20--git=20a/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=20= b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=0Aindex=20= 33413f5a00..7c40f7ebca=20100644=0A---=20= a/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=0A+++=20= b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp-tests.el=0A@@=20-700,6=20+700,9=20@@=20= "warn-autoload-not-on-top-level.el"=0A=20= (bytecomp--define-warning-file-test=20"warn-callargs.el"=0A=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= "with=202=20arguments,=20but=20accepts=20only=201")=0A=20=0A= +(bytecomp--define-warning-file-test=20"warn-callargs-defsubst.el"=0A+=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20"with=202=20arguments,=20but=20accepts=20only=201")=0A+=0A=20= (bytecomp--define-warning-file-test=20"warn-defcustom-nogroup.el"=0A=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20"fails=20to=20specify=20containing=20group")=0A=20=0A--=20=0A= 2.21.1=20(Apple=20Git-122.3)=0A=0A= --Apple-Mail=_8375DDF5-1C0B-4EA5-8FBA-AB73CFF00D26-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 07:09:59 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 11:09:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42391 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6t42-0003LN-Pv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:09:59 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:37498) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6t40-0003L9-UB for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:09:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID :In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2HwwfGmmoI9xlIa3Dsori869LocDhXjSpb317Qb/X0A=; b=AI7PNCNhLx6QWAx9Dn8huB0o42 d+TOuPBK0KYV5bZR48ttQvfVUdnN5gglCIdm1loTwlWSLJdlPlh4W9u4ViyJ8e12r3zk2CvJCA/uT qryxSdgcO0YfKQ2R2mppaphPrE1PntEtsQOqMQbcpHcMIgx8sthMpep2TQ7/j6j7c7V0=; Received: from cm-84.212.220.105.getinternet.no ([84.212.220.105] helo=elva) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m6t3r-0006j4-7O; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:09:49 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAALVBMVEX7+/vi4d3DwrzO zcuvrqu/v7mPj41gYF9PT08fHyADAwQtLS50c3N/f4D///+/Y3f8AAAAAWJLR0QOb70wTwAAAAd0 SU1FB+UHFwo6Jg+ATfUAAAFVSURBVDjLvZK/S8NAFMffkVC1ONyZULA4VPoP3BFRKA4pVAed/A/s 4hAcBDcnBxejg05KNlGa5rVDB6fg0KFT/wT/Gi+NIdh7GUTwm+Uun/f7HUClBLQsBT7ANpMud8Hl tm+daOBZfXbAfAY7rNWQLjR4zc/sQDFHf11tsfAQG8pRQgnw2h4p+GcxkStPbpSjMsazxv+iXUn/ X7l9osER4mkVuK4AdxMS7M/OaA8b7At6JHtb0/L2PR994rXZ8bsB9HCscHSZ3ojSsgg0T3oQ4tTI sI4o4QofgS+BVUwA5vhgeCzAZwn4DxDgy1ILDDZz8GqEauZgwIjZdlmKb/Q2KBAg+iwiQIiJ1B4D A0SIH+cpjimQaWgsA38LrAIU+ygW44xyYCa/zx2kAdoRJkQKsCYBDnUbfaOq5w7GAdE4HK5h3KGA XmHcJIrKnsm4TgIb43oZ6gv0cocGYVYw+wAAACV0RVh0ZGF0ZTpjcmVhdGUAMjAyMS0wNy0yM1Qx MDo1ODozOCswMDowMO6R6QgAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6bW9kaWZ5ADIwMjEtMDctMjNUMTA6NTg6Mzgr MDA6MDCfzFG0AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC X-Now-Playing: Jane Siberry's _Jane Siberry_: "This Girl I Know" Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:09:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:14:55 +0200") Message-ID: <878s1xffr9.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > Would this patch do? > For some reason that I haven't investigated, the usual > warning-suppression mechanisms seem ineffective for these > warnings. I'm probably doing something wrong. Even so, it' [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Roland Winkler 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: -3.3 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > Would this patch do? > For some reason that I haven't investigated, the usual > warning-suppression mechanisms seem ineffective for these > warnings. I'm probably doing something wrong. Even so, it's better to > have arity checks that cannot be disabled than none at all. Yes, we can fix up suppression afterwards... > From cb9d873871eb445ad18b2a89f3c4ba7e6a4d3ef3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =3D?UTF-8?q?Mattias=3D20Engdeg=3DC3=3DA5rd?=3D > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:00:17 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Warn about arity errors in inlining calls (bug#12299) This leads to warnings like: Warning: Eager macro-expansion skipped due to cycle: =E2=80=A6 =3D> (load "byte-opt.el") =3D> (macroexpand-all (defalias 'byte= -decompile-bytecode-1 =E2=80=A6)) =3D> (macroexpand (cl-symbol-macrolet =E2= =80=A6)) =3D> (load "byte-opt.el") At least initially? A "make bootstrap" made it go away. It otherwise seems to work fine for the test example. I wondered whether this added warning would find errors in the Emacs tree, so I did a "make bootstrap" after applying the patch, but we apparently have none of those, which surprised me. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 09:18:38 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 13:18:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42595 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6v4Y-0004jq-Bt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:18:38 -0400 Received: from mail74c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.84]:43158 helo=mail92c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6v4U-0004jb-BK for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:18:37 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1627046312; bh=Gcm7yvjTL7/sNEyFwNVGTgQ2ftJAhh4I0H4B73w+ryU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=Af7696lJlxLXS3pa9SmcSEWIxJBHhC5hwCaR8dpxTqvim771bFvOzYJTImWmYHSx1 B1dFRrFfe4ax1nd6eWr0mRKLNzHrpHu/zodIaJwFJZJ/WnYtSOI/LzxoC8mYJ0lAQL Wpv1AqICFdzoLYzAp/ZXkmTwdIGDZkHOOlhZ8nBo= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail92c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 16NDITs7005424; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:18:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <878s1xffr9.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:18:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <75945564-080D-4EC6-BD3E-2A70C72BE492@acm.org> References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> <878s1xffr9.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F1D.60FAC1A8.003C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=UJ+j4xXy c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:117 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:17 a=Ve99FEDGdn45tTQE:21 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=OocQHUDgAAAA:8 a=IsmX_BOBuKVwxy18mnoA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=RW9lQ-4mb-ULxO3qII2u:22 a=xUZTl98r3Qw_uB5NK3jt:22 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) 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: 23 juli 2021 kl. 13.09 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > Yes, we can fix up suppression afterwards... It's not a new problem -- there are plenty of warnings that can be generated during the source-level optimisation and suppressions don't work there right now. Content analysis details: (1.4 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.4 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Roland Winkler 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: -0.0 (/) 23 juli 2021 kl. 13.09 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > Yes, we can fix up suppression afterwards... It's not a new problem -- there are plenty of warnings that can be = generated during the source-level optimisation and suppressions don't = work there right now. > This leads to warnings like: >=20 > Warning: Eager macro-expansion skipped due to cycle: > =E2=80=A6 =3D> (load "byte-opt.el") =3D> (macroexpand-all (defalias = 'byte-decompile-bytecode-1 =E2=80=A6)) =3D> (macroexpand = (cl-symbol-macrolet =E2=80=A6)) =3D> (load "byte-opt.el") Strange. I never saw anything like that. But if bootstrapping helped = you, then I suppose it's fine. > I wondered whether this added warning would find errors in the Emacs > tree, so I did a "make bootstrap" after applying the patch, but we > apparently have none of those, which surprised me. Yes, I'm disappointed as well. Had hoped for some juicy pay-off, but no. Thanks for testing it -- pushed to master, slightly simplified (somehow = I completely missed the existence of `func-arity`) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 11:02:50 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 15:02:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44283 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6whN-0003fq-UU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:50 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:64789) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6whJ-0003fa-I4 for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:48 -0400 Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA00A440FB3; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A166440FA3; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1627052558; bh=adxI8p8fmwhqwIA4keQn9GTjR1kGOkd/xcbbm8WqhX4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=F9z/hH5/sADf3JoFoKzCmId73qgaccLchbNuCHAGWibQwvVK65lR7MtMFurudS0Q6 eDBUxrcxRkrZrEBqf+uhb1JHDlesxOZ1bXO4sr2U1bQ7darH9pKGdqFeVKNAzEIm22 7BztTCRYTVIkJL0sFjZbzplOoiol38JGD2k+brIDmp/94zfBBaMxwElQm44u1HRZ3v 7kC6EDHuRjvVx5+jK95jDBpfsVHRROaBWiOAOKeiISm2LGhEWws3LIH5DtC9sP6wwn TO1CgGCLjhCg6aJBaIHU69L9H19OsJTP3L6VR21mJvG2luoqGpLUSmbdXD+K9EIn3e F03TTcpGPTatg== Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.29.138]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33BF4120281; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] Message-ID: References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:14:55 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.095 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Roland Winkler 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: -3.3 (---) > diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el > index 341643c7d1..ad9f827171 100644 > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el > @@ -274,6 +274,7 @@ byte-compile-inline-expand > ((pred byte-code-function-p) > ;; (message "Inlining byte-code for %S!" name) > ;; The byte-code will be really inlined in byte-compile-unfold-bcf. > + (byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode form fn) > `(,fn ,@(cdr form))) Hmm... wouldn't we want the warning to be emitted if the source code was itself of the form constructed by `(,fn ,@(cdr form))? IOW I think we want that `byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode` call to be elsewhere (in the code that actually compiles the code constructed by `(,fn ,@(cdr form))). Also, as a general rule I think we should try and refrain from emitting warnings from the code in byte-opt.el (warnings should be independent from optimizations). > - `(,(symbol-function name) ,@(cdr form)))) > + (let ((bc (symbol-function name))) > + (byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode form bc) > + `(,bc ,@(cdr form))))) I think the same holds here. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 11:52:55 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 15:52:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44371 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6xTr-0004u4-3n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:52:55 -0400 Received: from mail1476c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.76]:42146 helo=mail118c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6xTo-0004tm-FZ for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:52:53 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1627055565; bh=z/sS6096zUJEHMDk2d8z10ZPVSy2jKbNSOmYgeeJz6k=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=tGVgAXcZgAqCt9MkuN0/kd7sFWs5JjkweoJxOZfdyifKhnlggR0mtvxCs522//WQy oM6U/ftRiAowqsIZGK84eopi1XsmV+1XXsbN0R3T8kCl15SdkheZm4xsCAvI/zubp9 qiJsYxRgKHKOjv7y0IOFzcahsB/mceRl4ZSOj47s= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail118c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 16NFqgvi008183; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:52:43 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:52:41 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> To: Stefan Monnier X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F28.60FAE5CD.001F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=Ro+70xuK c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:117 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:17 a=Ve99FEDGdn45tTQE:21 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=iRZporoAAAAA:8 a=_CyuGpgb4jryGE7Day8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=RW9lQ-4mb-ULxO3qII2u:22 a=NOBgFS-JBQ2l-kSd6-zu:22 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Roland Winkler 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: -0.7 (/) 23 juli 2021 kl. 17.02 skrev Stefan Monnier : > Hmm... wouldn't we want the warning to be emitted if the source code = was itself > of the form constructed by `(,fn ,@(cdr form))? You mean when FN is a bytecode object? Sure, we can do that too. (We = currently report an error when there are too many arguments but not too = few.) However, it doesn't replace the newly inserted checks, because: > IOW I think we want that `byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode` call to = be > elsewhere (in the code that actually compiles the code constructed by > `(,fn ,@(cdr form))). Tried that first, but then we no longer have the function name so the = user sees Warning: =E2=80=B9bytecode gibberish=E2=80=BA called with 1 argument = but requires 2 > Also, as a general rule I think we should try and refrain from = emitting > warnings from the code in byte-opt.el (warnings should be independent > from optimizations). Agree in general but for non-inlined calls we do the arity checks in the = codegen, after optimising, and that's too late for inlined calls. We = could do it in cconv, but then (a) we may not know the signature or (b) = the call could be in dead code. But this is good to have in mind -- we have a growing list of things to = deal with in a compiler reorganisation. There is a lot of history in = this code. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 12:21:46 2021 Received: (at 12299) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 16:21:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44427 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6xvm-0007pS-88 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:46 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20408) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6xvj-0007pE-Sx for 12299@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:44 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6761180966; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BCA6B808FB; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1627057289; bh=U9E+AQ3q+taod4EOcuDmlOsX7VWIiROWQJWb9i9Pdew=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=V5p7yfvpPF7elKznRBRIyEiBoIVnaWgyd41EM3v/4RNl7qtzUSndN+9DKjwu/Mnak U50cysrWsVSNaNHot1e40ddHFswiYwuXRktnfzErhPC32XF0oOlASOcxCyYqvT/OSj E1tgYJ4ToJ+t9LUAm4e3EnI5J8g2P6PuEgoKf+2s7QUpWlyZs6wcnNzg6FnVNlx+Hb dKV8MRWhpeDlMnLYM2Kovp910CjHOPos6lDtKWVj8IQvB9P73vnnngSjkNtvpR9Xc1 1ZPSMEALFeQXZBED/kTmCV5ZXG+UsYhxifoW03c1sDDrc4/GGggtH3wmZE5U7+a1BH lJtWKftFR6vjA== Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.29.138]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82066120317; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments [PATCH] Message-ID: References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:21:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:52:41 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.094 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299 Cc: 12299@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Roland Winkler 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: -3.3 (---) >> IOW I think we want that `byte-compile--check-arity-bytecode` call to be >> elsewhere (in the code that actually compiles the code constructed by >> `(,fn ,@(cdr form))). > Tried that first, but then we no longer have the function name so the use= r sees > Warning: =E2=80=B9bytecode gibberish=E2=80=BA called with 1 argument but= requires 2 Ah, right, makes sense, thanks, Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 06 18:36:44 2021 Received: (at 12299-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Dec 2021 23:36:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35674 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1muNXI-0006e6-8P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 18:36:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f170.google.com ([209.85.210.170]:44887) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1muNXG-0006dd-SZ for 12299-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 18:36:43 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f170.google.com with SMTP id k64so3437275pfd.11 for <12299-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 15:36:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4Lg/KDUe1wIcX+Jm+lsmxiBJ0IZjuGAPKZfUmTYVHPA=; b=NSkBCol8yE6UUZ1ENNNAMvArFD5PuvMW5Zw1NM9RFBDh4tClj+jimARPZ+UkIWs2dz s7pQY1rR6KMsx4N1RyJI2JHJOpjr6MF0jw+BDXYFNZleC8Xl2nkNYPATRJyPJzXWrRyg 6pJ66Wb6L0cYgCaG7OZTqZT7tRASco7OA1UUCyRIG2ZvjRhVWowqON9kUn2oQHS+EXR5 TdgCFi40M7C1hdkrVCJNXMYy6iCMz5i7kRBkRHqBNQZrbZ4HF4kto81A5GJ6spo+Gfao d6sCNKIr7munP57ECsNZV8+WZJ5GfbD9CI1YDD1oKabl0O8NtaDSf9jGH4h5ikvf5LJv VdJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334XVVVkaV1MZ5tuLPDoGIuIdCLTz1GEAyUD3YTzFupmsZ9Bg0w r3PkdEBipHNWDWl6yzVQBXy3k+w5M8NfS8TGdsQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7o9T6Rpi7X+2hyA+XFB5S3MNDDkpwLEXW9cTNOCGYE1dXJWf/PB3FtbOOBCGJ8OSZ1Qi2TgNRnBBrvdeb5C0= X-Received: by 2002:a63:ff14:: with SMTP id k20mr15774418pgi.325.1638833797135; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 15:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 00:36:36 +0100 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: =?UTF-8?B?PDc1OTQ1NTY0LTA4MEQtNEVDNi1CRDNFLTJBNzBDNzJCRTQ5MkBhY20ub3JnPiAo?= =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hdHRpYXMgRW5nZGVnw6VyZCIncyBtZXNzYWdlIG9mICJGcmksIDIzIEp1bCAyMDIxIDE1OjE4OjI4?= =?UTF-8?B?ICswMjAwIik=?= References: <743DF3D0-DA0F-49D4-A780-02C698AE8EFB@acm.org> <878s1xffr9.fsf@gnus.org> <75945564-080D-4EC6-BD3E-2A70C72BE492@acm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 00:36:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12299-done Cc: 12299-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier , Roland Winkler 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: -0.5 (/) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > Thanks for testing it -- pushed to master, slightly simplified > (somehow I completely missed the existence of `func-arity`) It seems like this bug was fixed, so I'm closing it now. commit 109ca1bd00b56ba66b123b505d8c2187fded0ef7 Author: Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd Date: Thu Jul 22 15:00:17 2021 +0200 Warn about arity errors in inlining calls (bug#12299) From unknown Fri Aug 15 20:58:14 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 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