GNU bug report logs - #64232
28.2; Incorrect(?) byte compilation warning about ‘ansi-color-apply-on-region’

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 64232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack <at> owlfolio.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 64232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#64232: 28.2; Incorrect(?) byte compilation warning about
 ‘ansi-color-apply-on-region’
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:10:27 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

"Zack Weinberg" <zack <at> owlfolio.org> writes:

> ```
> (declare-function ansi-color-apply-on-region "ansi-color"
>                   (begin end &optional preserve-sequences))
>
> (declare-function dired-get-marked-files "dired"
>                   (&optional localp arg filter distinguish-one-marked error))
>
> (eval-when-compile
>   (check-declare-file byte-compile-current-file))
>
> (defun colorize-buffer ()
>   (interactive)
>   (ansi-color-apply-on-region (point-min) (point-max)))
>
> (defun find-marked-files ()
>   (interactive)
>   (mapc 'find-file (dired-get-marked-files)))
> ```
>
> If you visit this file in emacs -Q and then invoke check-declare-file on
> it interactively, check-declare-file generates no warnings, which is
> correct.  However, if you invoke `emacs -Q --batch -f batch-byte-compile
> test.el` from the shell, you will get this output:
>
> ```
> uncompressing ansi-color.el.gz...
> uncompressing ansi-color.el.gz...done
> uncompressing dired.el.gz...
> uncompressing dired.el.gz...done
>
> In end of data:
> test.el:13:4: Warning: the function ‘ansi-color-apply-on-region’ might
> not be
>     defined at runtime.
> ```
>
> "The function ‘...’ might not be defined" is the phrase used by
> byte-compile-warn-about-unresolved-functions.  It's not a check-declare
> diagnostic.

Indeed - so we have an interference between byte compilation,
`eval-when-compile' and `check-declare-file'.  This seems to help and
might (?) be a good thing to do anyway:

[0001-WIP-Try-to-fix-Bug-64232.patch (text/x-diff, inline)]

From e972af2cd4d27b42cad7cf697bcfa32127cb0591 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:02:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] WIP: Try to fix Bug#64232

---
 lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index 99202185d8d..f468e34bb42 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -554,7 +554,9 @@ byte-compile-initial-macro-environment
                                  (let ((byte-compile-unresolved-functions
                                         byte-compile-unresolved-functions)
                                        (byte-compile-new-defuns
-                                        byte-compile-new-defuns))
+                                        byte-compile-new-defuns)
+                                       (byte-compile-noruntime-functions
+                                        byte-compile-noruntime-functions))
                                    (setf result
                                          (byte-compile-eval
                                           (byte-run-strip-symbol-positions
--
2.30.2

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Would be nice if someone like Stefan or Mattias could tell whether this
is an appropriate addition (independently from this obscure issue).


Michael.

Previous Next

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