GNU bug report logs - #63288
30.0.50; Emacs 30 packages fail to build with native comp on some machines

Previous Next

Full log

Message #65 received at 63288 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
To: damien <at> merenne.me
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>,
 63288 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63288: 30.0.50;
 Emacs 30 packages fail to build with native comp on some machines
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 09:34:34 +0000

<damien <at> merenne.me> writes:

> On 2025-01-29T19:46:04.000+01:00, Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com> wrote:
>> without going into too much detail, I think bytecomp.elc is not what it
>> should be.  Would it be possible for you to provide the 184350-byte
>> version you've seen in the broken build, and the (possibly 184350-byte)
>> version that produced a working Emacs?  The differences might be very
>> interesting.  Note that it is the .elc files that are interesting, not
>> their .el sources, and Emacs ignores the .elc extension when tab
>> completing by default.
>>
>> (Those files are long; if you cat them together and pipe through zstd
>> -22 --ultra --long, the result should be short enough to send).
>>
>> If you sill have time, warnings.elc may also be interesting.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Pip
>
> Here you are!

So I was in luck and the files were two copies of the "bad" files.
Unfortunately, while package.elc is clearly incorrect, it's less obvious
in these cases, because both versions seem correct: in bytecomp.elc, an
(inline ...) form is treated as progn in one build and inlined using
byte-optimize-inline-handler in the other.  I can reproduce that
difference by forcing byte-opt.el not to be compiled before bytecomp is.

Andrea, I'd like to carefully suggest that this is possibly bug#74771.
I still don't understand how reproducible this bug (bug#63288) is,
particularly without a 24-core CPU is, but my next suggestion would be
to disable nativecomp optimizations to see whether we're miscompiling
bytecomp.el.

But I'd like to make sure I'm not missing a more obvious explanation
here, so please let me know whether it's better to leave this bug to you
for now.

Thanks!

Pip

Previous Next

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