From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Sep 07 17:31:34 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Sep 2010 21:31:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5lO-00041O-Ba for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:31:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5lL-00041I-Pa for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:31:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5nE-0003zo-6N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:33:28 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:58734) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5nE-0003zk-4i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:33:28 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51401 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ot5nD-0005E2-4F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:33:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5nB-0003zU-Fr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:33:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:50141) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot5nB-0003zG-BJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:33:25 -0400 Received: by wyb36 with SMTP id 36so7665683wyb.0 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:33:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.1.208 with SMTP id 58mr664521wed.22.1283895202190; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.65.140 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:33:22 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xZXkjKBenKYWglkQH6jFFdu9LY8 Message-ID: Subject: `byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they? From: MON KEY To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) `byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they? Following files: src/bytecode.c lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el define the variables `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on' and a function `byte-compile-report-ops'. there is this comment in bytecomp.el ";;; report metering (see the hacks in bytecode.c)" I can't find reference to these anywher in docs, archives, etc. What do these things do? (byte-compile-report-ops) => Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable byte-code-meter) -- /s_P\ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Sep 07 19:27:13 2010 Received: (at 6996-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Sep 2010 23:27:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot7ZH-0004kh-RP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:27:12 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot7ZG-0004kc-Cg for 6996-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:27:10 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot7b8-0005jE-QE; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:29:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19590.51906.678909.900661@fencepost.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 19:29:06 -0400 From: Glenn Morris In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: bug#6996: `byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they? X-Spam-Score: -5.5 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6996-done Cc: 6996-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.5 (-----) MON KEY wrote (on Tue, 7 Sep 2010 at 17:33 -0400): > `byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they? > > Following files: > src/bytecode.c > lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el > > define the variables `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on' and a function > `byte-compile-report-ops'. >From src/bytecode.c: #ifdef BYTE_CODE_METER DEFVAR_LISP ("byte-code-meter", &Vbyte_code_meter,... ... #endif In the comments in the same file: define BYTE_CODE_METER to enable generation of a byte-op usage histogram. So if you are interested, why not define it, re-build and see what happens? I have no idea what it does, but since it is not on by default since 1991, and is not documented anywhere, I don't see it as a bug if it doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do. At the worst it is dead code that could be deleted. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Sep 08 03:28:27 2010 Received: (at 6996) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Sep 2010 07:28:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtF51-0007qn-5T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:28:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtF4z-0007qi-Ey for 6996@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:28:25 -0400 Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so6840413wyi.3 for <6996@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.53.19 with SMTP id f19mr384595wec.22.1283931023185; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.65.140 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:30:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:30:23 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MD3PC51WJMhTVCRyj9Ff2Wq3XTw Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#6996: Acknowledgement (`byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they?) From: MON KEY To: 6996@debbugs.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6996 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) > I have no idea what it does, If you don't I doubt few others do either, maybe Jim Blandy? > but since it is not on by default since 1991, That's nearly 20 years ago! > and is not documented anywhere, I don't see it as a bug if it > doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do. Its a bug b/c bytecomp.el exposes/provides it. > At the worst it is dead code that could be deleted. At the very least there must be _some_ reason the code has persisted... Hence, my tepid curiosity. -- /s_P\ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Sep 08 05:13:25 2010 Received: (at 6996) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Sep 2010 09:13:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtGib-0000Fo-0e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:13:25 -0400 Received: from impaqm2.telefonica.net ([213.4.138.2]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtGiY-0000Fh-W4 for 6996@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:13:23 -0400 Received: from IMPmailhost2.adm.correo ([10.20.102.39]) by IMPaqm2.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id 46to1f0080r0BT63M9FAEv; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:15:10 +0200 Received: from ceviche.home ([83.61.36.43]) by IMPmailhost2.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id 49F91f0060vquEj1i9F9R7; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:15:10 +0200 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-TE-authinfo: authemail="monnier$movistar.es" |auth_email="monnier@movistar.es" X-TE-AcuTerraCos: auth_cuTerraCos="cosuitnetc01" Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0ECE7660D2; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:15:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Monnier To: MON KEY Subject: Re: bug#6996: Acknowledgement (`byte-compile-report-ops', `byte-code-meter', `byte-metering-on', what are they?) Message-ID: References: Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:15:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (MON KEY's message of "Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:30:23 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6996 Cc: 6996@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) >> At the worst it is dead code that could be deleted. > At the very least there must be _some_ reason the code has > persisted... Hence, my tepid curiosity. >From the description it was code that tried to figure out which byte-codes were used more often. Probably this was used at some point to help decide which byte-code to add/keep as well as how much to optimize paticular byte-codes. Stefan From unknown Fri Sep 05 08:40:58 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator