[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#48181: incremental autoloads update can put output in wrong file
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#48181: incremental autoloads update can put output in wrong file |
Date: |
Mon, 03 May 2021 14:37:44 +0300 |
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 21:08:57 -0400
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>
> 1) before 68bf917896, lisp/loaddefs.el contains sections like this:
>
> ;;;### (autoloads nil "texnfo-upd" "textmodes/texnfo-upd.el" (0 0
> ;;;;;; 0 0))
> ;;; Generated autoloads from textmodes/texnfo-upd.el
>
> (register-definition-prefixes "texnfo-upd" '("texinfo-"))
(The other 2 files, makeinfo.el and texinfo.el, are also related,
right?)
> So even though there aren't any real autoloads in texnfo-upd.el, it's
> not in the "no autoloads" section.
>
> 2) 68bf917896 added real autoload cookies to texnfo-upd.el, and set
> generated-autoload-file to texinfo-loaddefs.el.
>
> 3) make-directory-autoloads correctly finds that texnfo-upd.el is newer
> than loaddefs.el, so we execute this branch:
>
> (t
> (setq changed t)
> (autoload-remove-section (match-beginning 0))
> (if (autoload-generate-file-autoloads
> ;; Passing `current-buffer' makes it insert at point.
> file (current-buffer) buffer-file-name)
> (push file no-autoloads)))
>
> Because a non-nil OUTBUF is passed to autoload-generate-file-autoloads,
> it ignores the buffer-local setting for generated-autoload-file,
> and so puts the autoloads in the main loaddefs.el file, which is wrong.
>
>
> In contrast, if the input loaddefs.el file in step 1 had texnfo-upd.el
> in the "no loaddefs" section, then we would execute this branch:
>
> ;; Passing nil as second argument forces
> ;; autoload-generate-file-autoloads to look for the right
> ;; spot where to insert each autoloads section.
> ((setq file-time
> (autoload-generate-file-autoloads file nil buffer-file-name))
>
> As the comment says, this version has OUTBUF nil, so the loaddefs end up
> the right file.
Yes, I've also figured out that by suitable editing of the nascent
loaddefs.el I could fix the original problem. But such manual editing
sounded gross to me.
Or are you saying something else?