GNU bug report logs - #33602
27.0.50; Compiling no file at

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, markusffm <at> fn.de, 33602 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, m43cap <at> yandex.com
Subject: bug#33602: 27.0.50; Compiling no file at
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:36:50 +0200

> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:07:05 +0000
> Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, markusffm <at> fn.de, 33602 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, m43cap <at> yandex.com
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
> 
> > If we want to change the text, it's fine.  But removing the log
> > altogether sounds like too much to me.
> 
> Why?  The log doesn't appear in Emacs-26.  It does appear in recent
> versions of master.  The creation of this buffer is an unintended
> consequence of the amendments I made to the byte compiler's warning
> message mechanism around a week and a half ago.
> 
> In a call of byte-compile, both byte-compile-current-file and
> byte-compile-last-logged-file tend to be nil.
> 
> Whereas the condition at the top of byte-compile-log-file used to be
> 
>     (not (equal byte-compile-current-file byte-compile-last-logged-file))
> 
> , now it additionally checks
> 
>     (get-buffer byte-compile-log-buffer)
> 
> , and "re"creates that buffer if it doesn't exist.
> 
> So previously, *Compile-Log* didn't get created.  Now it does.  I think
> I should revert that part of the change.  What do you say?

No objections here.

> Changing the wording is a separate issue, but I think it should also be
> done.  I would suggest instead of "Compiling no file at <time>" we say
> "Compiling, not from a file, at <time>".

That still sounds strange to me.  How about

  Compiling (no file name) at TIME

Previous Next

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