Re: [PATCHES] Please test them

[Teika Kazura <teika lavabit com>]

Hi.

Chris, you wrote this patch to suppress compiler warnings (gcc / 
sawfish byte compiler), right? Unfortunately, some are wrong.

Patch on maximize.jl is ok.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/lisp/sawfish/wm/theming/make-theme.jl b/lisp/sawfish/wm/theming/make-theme.jl
index fc8acbe..15a24f5 100644
--- a/lisp/sawfish/wm/theming/make-theme.jl
+++ b/lisp/sawfish/wm/theming/make-theme.jl
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
                           (setq value (get-color value)))
                          ((and (consp value) (stringp (car value)))
                           (let
-                              ((img (make-image (car value))))
+                              ((img (make-image)))
                             (when img
                               (mapc (lambda (attr)
                                       (cond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(make-image filename) is the usage, so it's wrong. In my build log,
byte-compiler complains at make-theme.jl, too. At the same time, in
wm/util/gtkrc.jl, there's a call to make-image, too, but the compiler
didn't say anything for this file. It must be librep or compiler bug.

gnome/integration.jl. Look at the patched part:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  (let ((restart (rassoc '(restart) root-menu))
        (quit (rassoc '(quit) root-menu))
        (programs (rassoc 'apps-menu root-menu)))
    (when restart
      (setq root-menu (delq restart root-menu)))
    (when quit
      (setq root-menu (delq quit root-menu)))
    ;; FIXME: until GNOME 2 applications are supported
;;    (when programs
;;      (setq root-menu (delq programs root-menu)))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
'promgams' is unused because it's commented out. So why don't we leave
it as-is, or fix the commented code.

On prompt.jl patch: all four hunks are wrong.

For example,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (let ((result (if (not prompt-validation-fun)
                   prompt-result
-                (prompt-validation-fun prompt-result))))
+                (prompt-validation-fun))))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original code binds a value to 'result'. If prompt-validation-fun
is bound, then it processes prompt-result. Otherwise, raw prompt-result
is fed.

In prompt-extras.jl, prompt-validation-fun is bound to several
funcitions, eg prompt-validate-filename, and all needs an argument.

To make the byte compiler silent, the following may do the job
(not confirmed):

 (eval-when-compile 
   (setq prompt-validation-fun
     (lambda (arg))))

wm/user.jl:
In my case, user.jl and misc.jl compiled without any message.
And error-handler-function is defined at top level of rep, so
it doesn't require 'open'. (See librep/src/lisp.c)

I haven't confirmed the rest, src/flippers.c & librep, but look
benign.

This study revealed that byte compiler message is not complete, so why
don't we record them at wiki or bugzilla? (It's difficult, let's run
away and confront with easier-but-important things. :)

Regards,
Teika (Teika kazura)