GNU bug report logs - #24449
Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong place.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 24449 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 24449 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:31:25 +0000

Hello, Emacs.

Using Emacs 25.1 RC2, and lisp/progmodes/cc-engine.el from commit
33f856ba01d13f649cf5c848b322ecb0dbfc02fc (Fri Sep 16 10:47:55 2016
+0000), 

    $ emacs -Q -batch -f batch-byte-compile cc-engine.el

.  This outputs the following warning:

    In c-forward-decl-or-cast-1:
    cc-engine.el:8105:22:Warning: reference to free variable `eq'

.  The use of `eq' on L8105 is entirely correct.  The error is at L8636,
where the following appears:

    (and eq context nil
         (match-beginning 1))

.  Clearly parentheses around the `eq' form are missing.

The compiler should have output its warning for L8636, not L8105.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #8 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:22:08 +0300

> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:31:25 +0000
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> 
>     $ emacs -Q -batch -f batch-byte-compile cc-engine.el
> 
> .  This outputs the following warning:
> 
>     In c-forward-decl-or-cast-1:
>     cc-engine.el:8105:22:Warning: reference to free variable `eq'
> 
> .  The use of `eq' on L8105 is entirely correct.  The error is at L8636,
> where the following appears:
> 
>     (and eq context nil
>          (match-beginning 1))
> 
> .  Clearly parentheses around the `eq' form are missing.
> 
> The compiler should have output its warning for L8636, not L8105.

Did you look at how the byte compiler determines the line number it
will include in the warning/error message?  If you didn't, you should,
because after you do, you will never again wonder why an incorrect
line number is reported.  In fact, now that I did look there, I'm
surprised it reports a correct line number at all, let alone as often
as it does.  It's sheer luck.

Message #11 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:33:52 +0000

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 04:22:08PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:31:25 +0000
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> > 
> >     $ emacs -Q -batch -f batch-byte-compile cc-engine.el
> > 
> > .  This outputs the following warning:
> > 
> >     In c-forward-decl-or-cast-1:
> >     cc-engine.el:8105:22:Warning: reference to free variable `eq'
> > 
> > .  The use of `eq' on L8105 is entirely correct.  The error is at L8636,
> > where the following appears:
> > 
> >     (and eq context nil
> >          (match-beginning 1))
> > 
> > .  Clearly parentheses around the `eq' form are missing.
> > 
> > The compiler should have output its warning for L8636, not L8105.

> Did you look at how the byte compiler determines the line number it
> will include in the warning/error message?

I'm looking at it now, with a view to making it work.

> If you didn't, you should, because after you do, you will never again
> wonder why an incorrect line number is reported.  In fact, now that I
> did look there, I'm surprised it reports a correct line number at all,
> let alone as often as it does.  It's sheer luck.

This is not a Good Thing.  Even its own comment describes itself as a
"gross hack".  Surely we can do better?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #14 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:09:38 +0300

> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:33:52 +0000
> Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> 
> > If you didn't, you should, because after you do, you will never again
> > wonder why an incorrect line number is reported.  In fact, now that I
> > did look there, I'm surprised it reports a correct line number at all,
> > let alone as often as it does.  It's sheer luck.
> 
> This is not a Good Thing.  Even its own comment describes itself as a
> "gross hack".  Surely we can do better?

I certainly hope we can.  But, unless I misunderstood something, the
way it's designed makes that really hard.

Message #17 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:08:33 +0000

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:09:38PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:33:52 +0000
> > Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>

> > > If you didn't, you should, because after you do, you will never again
> > > wonder why an incorrect line number is reported.  In fact, now that I
> > > did look there, I'm surprised it reports a correct line number at all,
> > > let alone as often as it does.  It's sheer luck.

> > This is not a Good Thing.  Even its own comment describes itself as a
> > "gross hack".  Surely we can do better?

> I certainly hope we can.  But, unless I misunderstood something, the
> way it's designed makes that really hard.

Yes.  I understand it better now, though the comments before
`byte-compile-set-symbol-position' are not as helpful as they might be.

Given that the byte compiler works by first reading an entire top-level
form, and only then going to work on it, the only handle the compiler
has on the original source is this list `read-symbol-positions-list'
produced by the reader.  (It was probably invented for the byte
compiler).

So without rewriting one or both of the byte compiler and the reader,
there doesn't seem to be a different strategy available for determining
the position in the raw source.  Correction: there might be: On
processing a symbol, at the moment the earliest occurrence of that
symbol in `read-symbol-positions-list' is removed from it.  Instead, we
could remove everything up to and including that symbol.  Maybe.

What I'm guessing happened in my particular case is that several
instances of 'eq in that list failed to get removed because it's a
function that undergoes compiler optimisation.  Or something like that.

So, the thing for me to check first is that
`byte-compile-set-symbol-position' gets called for _everything_ it
should be.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #24 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:34:51 +0000

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:09:38PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:33:52 +0000
> > Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> > 
> > > If you didn't, you should, because after you do, you will never again
> > > wonder why an incorrect line number is reported.  In fact, now that I
> > > did look there, I'm surprised it reports a correct line number at all,
> > > let alone as often as it does.  It's sheer luck.
> > 
> > This is not a Good Thing.  Even its own comment describes itself as a
> > "gross hack".  Surely we can do better?

> I certainly hope we can.  But, unless I misunderstood something, the
> way it's designed makes that really hard.

After studying `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' for several hours, I
can now see what it's meant to do, and the bug that prevents it doing
it.

The variable `last' was intended to record the previous value of
byte-compile-last-position to ensure that its next value would be higher
than the previous one.  Part of the comment was intended to express
this.  But in some sort of coding error, `last' ended up being set at
each iteration of the loop, making it purposeless.

By binding `last' to its intended value at the start of
`b-c-set-symbol-position', and amending the loop condition to avoid an
infinite loop, the warning message for the faulty cc-engine.el now comes
out at the right place.  I'm not sure my new version provides any
guarantee of correctness either, but I think it's more likely.

Here is my patch.  I still think I should amend the comment preceding
it.



diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index b6bb1d6..2502323 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -1042,19 +1042,20 @@ byte-compile-delete-first
 ;; gross hack?  And the answer, of course, would be yes.
 (defun byte-compile-set-symbol-position (sym &optional allow-previous)
   (when byte-compile-read-position
-    (let (last entry)
+    (let ((last byte-compile-last-position)
+          entry)
       (while (progn
-	       (setq last byte-compile-last-position
-		     entry (assq sym read-symbol-positions-list))
+	       (setq entry (assq sym read-symbol-positions-list))
 	       (when entry
 		 (setq byte-compile-last-position
 		       (+ byte-compile-read-position (cdr entry))
 		       read-symbol-positions-list
 		       (byte-compile-delete-first
 			entry read-symbol-positions-list)))
-	       (or (and allow-previous
-                        (not (= last byte-compile-last-position)))
-		   (> last byte-compile-last-position)))))))
+	       (and entry
+                    (or (and allow-previous
+                             (not (= last byte-compile-last-position)))
+                        (> last byte-compile-last-position))))))))
 
 (defvar byte-compile-last-warned-form nil)
 (defvar byte-compile-last-logged-file nil)


Comments?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #27 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:03:54 +0300

> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:34:51 +0000
> Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> 
> Comments?

Please perform a full bootstrap and compare the warning messages
before and after the change.  Then tell what you found.

Thanks.

Message #32 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:29:52 +0000

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:03:54PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:34:51 +0000
> > Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> > 
> > Comments?

> Please perform a full bootstrap and compare the warning messages
> before and after the change.  Then tell what you found.

This was actually very interesting.  I've never really looked at warning
messages all that closely before.  Here's what I saw:

1. The column numbers of all positions are irritatingly 1-based, so are
  1 off from the column number displayed in Emacs's mode line.

2. Most of the warnings are "foo is an obsolete function", for which the
  position given is only vaguely in the same area as the offending
  function, both with and without the change.  It seems that for this
  warning, `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' is not being called at
  all.  As an example of where the positions in the warnings differ:

(Before change):
emulation/viper.el:986:44:Warning: `interactive-p' is an obsolete function (as
    of 23.2); use `called-interactively-p' instead.
(After change):
emulation/viper.el:1023:69:Warning: `interactive-p' is an obsolete function
    (as of 23.2); use `called-interactively-p' instead.

  The actual occurrence of `interactive-p' is at 937:15.  Both of the
  positions given are at occurrences of the symbol `vi-state'.  It is
  perhaps a little worrying that the output positions are both beyond
  the actual position, suggesting that some call of
  `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' has already moved the position too
  far before this warning gets generated.

3. Most of the other warnings actually output were similarly vague in
  their positions.  This includes warnings generated by packages other
  than the byte compiler, e.g. cedet.

4. The three "free variable" warnings' inaccurate positions (before
change) were given accurate positions (after change).  As well as the
occurrence in cc-engine.el, we have:

(Before change):
org/org.el:12842:19:Warning: assignment to free variable `e'
org/org.el:12842:19:Warning: reference to free variable `e
(After change):
org/org.el:12840:20:Warning: assignment to free variable `e'
org/org.el:12840:20:Warning: reference to free variable `e'

5. The change I made yesterday appears not to have made anything any
  worse.

=========================================================================

What I would suggest should get done: we should make the column numbers
0-based; suitable places to call `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' for
the error messages we see should be identified, the calls inserted, and
another bootstrap build done to see how much this helps.

> Thanks.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #35 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 12:35:05 +0300

> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:29:52 +0000
> Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> 
> 5. The change I made yesterday appears not to have made anything any
>   worse.

Thanks, I guess that means you should push it.

> What I would suggest should get done: we should make the column numbers
> 0-based

This should be a separate change, and before doing it, we should make
sure to fix code that assumes the columns to be 1-based (e.g, what
does "C-x `" do?).

> suitable places to call `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' for
> the error messages we see should be identified, the calls inserted, and
> another bootstrap build done to see how much this helps.

Sounds a good idea, thanks.

Message #38 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 12:06:39 +0200

On Sep 17 2016, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> This should be a separate change, and before doing it, we should make
> sure to fix code that assumes the columns to be 1-based (e.g, what
> does "C-x `" do?).

It uses compilation-first-column.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Message #43 received at 24449-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24449-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 12:58:36 +0000

Hello, Eli.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:35:05PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:29:52 +0000
> > Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>

> > 5. The change I made yesterday appears not to have made anything any
> >   worse.

> Thanks, I guess that means you should push it.

Done.  I took the liberty of amending the comment before
`byte-compile-set-symbol-position'.

> > What I would suggest should get done: we should make the column numbers
> > 0-based

> This should be a separate change, and before doing it, we should make
> sure to fix code that assumes the columns to be 1-based (e.g, what
> does "C-x `" do?).

Ah.  OK.

> > suitable places to call `byte-compile-set-symbol-position' for
> > the error messages we see should be identified, the calls inserted, and
> > another bootstrap build done to see how much this helps.

> Sounds a good idea, thanks.

Done this too, in one place, which causes the "obsolete function"
messages to get the correct position.

Messages generated by `macroexp--warn-and-return' continue to have wrong
positions.  I'm not sure it's possible to fix this, and my intellect
isn't up to working out how it works, at least not today.

The messages about unknown functions, or not known to be defined at
runtime functions continue to give EOF as their position.  This was the
use case for the parameter `allow-previous' in
`byte-compile-set-symbol-position', but it didn't work before, and it
continues not to work just as well now.  It would be possible to fix
this by not deleting elements from `read-symbol-positions-list', but
this would slow down compilation (even if only a little), and generally
seems not to be worth the trouble.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #46 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: acm <at> muc.de
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:56:46 +0200

Hello Alan,

do your commits maybe fix any of the bugs related to #22288

  25.0.50; Incorrect line and column number in byte-compilation warning

(22288,2681,8774,9109,24128)?


Thanks,

Michael.

Message #49 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:46:00 +0000

Hello, Michael.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 09:56:46PM +0200, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Hello Alan,

> do your commits maybe fix any of the bugs related to #22288

>   25.0.50; Incorrect line and column number in byte-compilation warning

> (22288,2681,8774,9109,24128)?

Outch!  I was so angry with myself for making that stupid commit to
cc-engine.el (which I wouldn't have done without the bug), that I raised
bug #24449 before checking for existing bugs.

To answer your question:

#24449 should fix #22288 (though I haven't verified this).
I doubt it will fix #24128.  (Though I might be able to knock this one
down with a bit of hacking.)
I think it will fix #9109.
I think it will fix #8774.
I think it will fix #2681

At this point, we should decide which one of us is going to check these
earlier bugs.  It would be a waste of effort if we both did.

I will definitely be having a look at #24128.

> Thanks,

> Michael.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #52 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 22:51:55 +0200

Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

> At this point, we should decide which one of us is going to check
> these earlier bugs.  It would be a waste of effort if we both did.

Since I'm very busy currently, I would be glad if you could care about
this stuff.  Some more days don't count given how long the general issue
existed, so no hurry.


Thanks,

Michael.

Message #55 received at 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 24449 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24449: Emacs 25.1 RC2: Byte compiler reports error in wrong
 place.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:59:29 +0000

Hello, Michael.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:51:55PM +0200, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

> > At this point, we should decide which one of us is going to check
> > these earlier bugs.  It would be a waste of effort if we both did.

> Since I'm very busy currently, I would be glad if you could care about
> this stuff.  Some more days don't count given how long the general issue
> existed, so no hurry.

OK, I'll look at these either today (:-) or tomorrow.

> Thanks,

> Michael.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Previous Next

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