GNU bug report logs - #59459
29.0.50; Compilation warnings without tree-sitter

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 59459 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 59459 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: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Bug Report Emacs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 29.0.50; Compilation warnings without tree-sitter
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:01:14 -0800

[Continuing from bug#59426]

Those warnings are due to no-tree-sitter build not having functions
defined in treesit.c. Eli fixed those warnings by adding
declare-function’s in every file using those functions. Can we make it a
bit nicer for lisp developers? Maybe defining those functions with
dummies with something like

(defun xxx
(error ’treesit "Tree-sitter not available"))

?

Yuan

Message #8 received at 59459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 59459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59459: 29.0.50; Compilation warnings without tree-sitter
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:21:08 +0200

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:01:14 -0800
> 
> [Continuing from bug#59426]
> 
> Those warnings are due to no-tree-sitter build not having functions
> defined in treesit.c. Eli fixed those warnings by adding
> declare-function’s in every file using those functions. Can we make it a
> bit nicer for lisp developers? Maybe defining those functions with
> dummies with something like
> 
> (defun xxx
> (error ’treesit "Tree-sitter not available"))
> 
> ?

I'm not sure this is justified.  The cases where a build lacks a very large
group of primitives references in *.el files are quite rare in our practice;
about the only two examples I know of are xwidgets.el and treesit.el (plus
modes which use tree-sitter).  It's easy enough (albeit annoying) to add a
few declare-function's, so unless we are going to have more and more of
these cases, adding a whole new infrastructure, let alone tricks like the
above, which will raise a lot of brows, sound excessive to me.

Message #11 received at 59459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 59459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 59459-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59459: 29.0.50; Compilation warnings without tree-sitter
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:22:10 -0800

> On Nov 22, 2022, at 4:21 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:01:14 -0800
>> 
>> [Continuing from bug#59426]
>> 
>> Those warnings are due to no-tree-sitter build not having functions
>> defined in treesit.c. Eli fixed those warnings by adding
>> declare-function’s in every file using those functions. Can we make it a
>> bit nicer for lisp developers? Maybe defining those functions with
>> dummies with something like
>> 
>> (defun xxx
>> (error ’treesit "Tree-sitter not available"))
>> 
>> ?
> 
> I'm not sure this is justified.  The cases where a build lacks a very large
> group of primitives references in *.el files are quite rare in our practice;
> about the only two examples I know of are xwidgets.el and treesit.el (plus
> modes which use tree-sitter).  It's easy enough (albeit annoying) to add a
> few declare-function's, so unless we are going to have more and more of
> these cases, adding a whole new infrastructure, let alone tricks like the
> above, which will raise a lot of brows, sound excessive to me.

If it cannot be easily done with existing tools, then I agree declare-function is good enough.

Thanks,
Yuan

Previous Next

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