GNU bug report logs - #57627
29.0.50; [native-compilation] cl-loaddefs.el recompiled on startup

Previous Next

Full log

Message #79 received at 57627 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: germanp82 <at> hotmail.com, 57627 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 Andrea Corallo <akrl <at> sdf.org>
Subject: Re: bug#57627: 29.0.50; [native-compilation] cl-loaddefs.el
 recompiled on startup
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:13:32 +0200

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> After spending many milliseconds thinking about it, my conclusion is
> that the bytecompiler should add a little code snippet like
> (puthash load-file-name t comp--no-native-compile) in the
> file if `no-native-compile` was specified.  So it then be easy for the
> lazy native compilation to detect that it should skip this file (since
> lazy native compilation is triggered after loading the file) by just
> consulting `comp--no-native-compile`.
>
> For that, there's no need to change the way `no-native-compile` is specified.

True, but it's kinda hacky, and if possible, I'd like to avoid adding
more hacks in this area...

>> That is, in this case, we'd say
>>
>> (pragma 'no-native-compile)
>>
>> somewhere in the file.
>
> I guess that could work for `no-native-compile`, indeed.  But if you ask
> to native compile this file and the pragma is halfway down the file,
> what happens?

Yes, that's no good.  Uhm...  we could make a rule that all `pragma's
have to appear as the first form(s) in a Lisp file?  And error out if
somebody tries to add a `pragma' later in the file.

I think that would make sense in general -- we're trying to express
something about the file as a whole, after all.

>> We could have
>>
>> (pragma 'dynamic-binding)
>
> I guess this one could work (of course, it'd have to be at top-level),
> and we could switch back&forth within the same file (yuck!).
>
> But if we allow such `pragma` to be output by macros, then it becomes
> tricky for `eval-region` to reliably decide which dialect to use.

Hm, yes...  But we have the same issue today, don't we?  That is

(progn
  (pop-to-buffer "*foo*")
  (emacs-lisp-mode)
  (insert ";;;  -*- lexical-binding: t -*-\n(message \"Lex: %s\" lexical-binding)")
  (eval-region (pos-bol) (point)))

Well, OK, that's the same result with point-min, but...

> So we could allow such `pragma`, but we'd likely end up restricting its
> syntax so we're able to find it with something like a regexp search, so
> in the end it's not clear what's the advantage over
> file-local variables.

If they have to be the first forms, there may be some advantages...

Previous Next

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