GNU logs - #64526, boring messages

Message sent to acorallo@HIDDEN, bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#64526: 30.0.50; jit-compilation and multiple function definitions
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: acorallo@HIDDEN, bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2023 01:43:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.64526.B.168878052210354 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 64526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2023 21:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <jwv7crbw56j.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50;
 envelope-from=monnier@HIDDEN; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca
X-Spam_score_int: -42
X-Spam_score: -4.3
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

Package: Emacs
Version: 30.0.50


Say you have a file ~/tmp/foo.el:

    ;;  -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-
    (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 1))
    (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 2))

which you byte-compile into ~/tmp/foo.elc, and then you do:

    emacs -Q -l ~/tmp/foo
    M-: (sm-foo1 'a) RET

you'll usually get `(a 2)` (and that's what we expect).  But if you enable
native compilation and erase the `eln-cache` before trying it out you
may get `(a 1)` because when the `.eln` file is reloaded on top of the
`.elc` definitions, `comp--late-register-subr` will skip the second
definition :-(

I suspect similar problems can occur when the two definitions are placed
in different files (and those files are loaded "at the same time",
i.e. the second file is loaded before the native-compilation of the
first file finishes) since `comp-deferred-pending-h` does not pay
attention to the file names.  :-(


        Stefan

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#64526: Acknowledgement (30.0.50; jit-compilation and multiple
 function definitions)
Message-ID: <handler.64526.B.168878052210354.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <jwv7crbw56j.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 64526
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 64526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2023 01:43:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

As you requested using X-Debbugs-CC, your message was also forwarded to
  Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
(after having been given a bug report number, if it did not have one).

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 64526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
64526: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D64526
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#64526: 30.0.50; jit-compilation and multiple function definitions
Resent-From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 07:45:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.64526.B64526.168897507817872 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Cc: 64526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <jwv7crbw56j.fsf@HIDDEN> (Stefan Monnier's message of
 "Fri, 07 Jul 2023 21:41:24 -0400")
References: <jwv7crbw56j.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 03:44:24 -0400
Message-ID: <yp15y6sus6f.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN> writes:

> Package: Emacs
> Version: 30.0.50
>
>
> Say you have a file ~/tmp/foo.el:
>
>     ;;  -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-
>     (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 1))
>     (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 2))
>
> which you byte-compile into ~/tmp/foo.elc, and then you do:
>
>     emacs -Q -l ~/tmp/foo
>     M-: (sm-foo1 'a) RET
>
> you'll usually get `(a 2)` (and that's what we expect).  But if you enable
> native compilation and erase the `eln-cache` before trying it out you
> may get `(a 1)` because when the `.eln` file is reloaded on top of the
> `.elc` definitions, `comp--late-register-subr` will skip the second
> definition :-(

Hi Stefan,

are we sure about this? Is this reproducible?

Thanks

  Andrea

> I suspect similar problems can occur when the two definitions are placed
> in different files (and those files are loaded "at the same time",
> i.e. the second file is loaded before the native-compilation of the
> first file finishes) since `comp-deferred-pending-h` does not pay
> attention to the file names.  :-(
>
>
>         Stefan

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#64526: 30.0.50; jit-compilation and multiple function definitions
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:39:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.64526.B64526.168898190330102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Cc: 64526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <yp15y6sus6f.fsf@HIDDEN> (Andrea Corallo's message of
 "Mon, 10 Jul 2023 03:44:24 -0400")
Message-ID: <jwvfs5wp0o9.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <jwv7crbw56j.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <yp15y6sus6f.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 05:38:11 -0400
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

>> Package: Emacs
>> Version: 30.0.50
>>
>>
>> Say you have a file ~/tmp/foo.el:
>>
>>     ;;  -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-
>>     (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 1))
>>     (defun sm-foo1 (a) (list a 2))
>>
>> which you byte-compile into ~/tmp/foo.elc, and then you do:
>>
>>     emacs -Q -l ~/tmp/foo
>>     M-: (sm-foo1 'a) RET
>>
>> you'll usually get `(a 2)` (and that's what we expect).  But if you enable
>> native compilation and erase the `eln-cache` before trying it out you
>> may get `(a 1)` because when the `.eln` file is reloaded on top of the
>> `.elc` definitions, `comp--late-register-subr` will skip the second
>> definition :-(
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> are we sure about this? Is this reproducible?

Yes, the above recipe reproduces it on my machine at least.


        Stefan

Last modified: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:45:01 UTC

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