Thank you for making me realize I use guile-master... I am not really sure what that binding expands into, but it is reasonable to think it has no effect on performance
-- Linus Björnstam On Fri, 7 Jun 2024, at 00:52, Tomas Volf wrote: > On 2024-06-06 22:02:50 +0200, Linus Björnstam wrote: >> Which version are you using? All my similar issues with srfi-9 went away >> last year when srfi things were marked maybe-unused. > > I am using the latest 3.0.9. However thanks to your hint about maybe-unused, > I > can see this: > > $ git log v3.0.9.. -- module/srfi/srfi-9.scm > commit 7fef214f6e0df4004020fec530e808c476f2d2bf > Author: Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> > Date: Sun Mar 17 09:52:49 2024 +0100 > > Remove vestigial code from srfi-9 > > * module/srfi/srfi-9.scm (%define-record-type): No need to define > record-layout. > > commit 19c7969fff223f28cad90e21ae04a0a5852901fc > Author: Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> > Date: Thu Aug 24 11:41:15 2023 +0200 > > define-inlinable marks residualized procedure as maybe-unused > > * module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (define-inlinable): > * module/srfi/srfi-9.scm (define-tagged-inlinable): Add maybe-unused > declaration. Also require at least one body expr, otherwise the > metadata declaration could escape as the proc body. > > So it looks like this is not in any released version yet. And indeed, when I > try to compile it using the current master, the warning goes away. > > I wonder how to work around it in the mean time. I guess I could just put > %foo?-procedure as a top-level expression. This seems to not produce any > warnings: > > (define-module (x) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-9) > #:export (<foo> > foo? > make-foo)) > > (define-record-type <foo> (make-foo) foo?) > %foo?-procedure > > I guess there should be pretty much zero performance impact, correct? Are > there > any side effects I might not be aware of? > >> >> I don't have a computer this week so I cannot try your code. Sorry. > > No worries, you were helpful already, enjoy your no-computer time :) > >> >> -- >> Linus Björnstam >> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, at 17:02, Tomas Volf wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am getting following warning from a guild compile: >> > >> > warning: possibly unused local top-level variable `%foo?-procedure' >> > >> > And I am not sure how to tackle it. This is my full source code: >> > >> > (define-module (x) >> > #:use-module (srfi srfi-9) >> > #:export (<foo> >> > foo? >> > make-foo)) >> > >> > (define-record-type <foo> (make-foo) foo?) >> > >> > When I try to compile it: >> > >> > $ guild compile -W 3 -o x.go x.scm >> > x.scm:7:0: warning: possibly unused local top-level variable >> > `%foo?-procedure' >> > wrote `x.go' >> > >> > I would (for obvious reasons) like to keep my compilation warning-free. I >> > can >> > think of two approaches: >> > >> > 1. Export the %foo?-procedure >> > I think this would confuse downstream users, since they are not >> > expected to >> > use it directly. >> > >> > 2. Mark the procedure as used >> > In C I could use `(void)proc;', is there an equivalent of that >> > construct >> > in Guile? >> > >> > Are there other options? How are you approaching it? >> > >> > Thank you and have a nice day, >> > Tomas Volf >> > >> > PS: I am not even sure why this warning happens, the `foo?' syntax >> > transformer >> > is exported and *does* reference it (as far as I can tell from ,expand). >> > >> > -- >> > There are only two hard things in Computer Science: >> > cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors. >> > >> > Attachments: >> > * signature.asc > > Have a nice day, > Tomas Volf > > -- > There are only two hard things in Computer Science: > cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors. > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
