GNU bug report logs - #12299
24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function call with too few arguments

Previous Next

Full log

Message #31 received at 12299 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 12299 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Roland Winkler <winkler <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#12299: 24.1; no byte compiler warning for inline function
 call with too few arguments [PATCH]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:02:37 -0400

> 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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.