Re: bytecomp warning for CL functions

[Stefan Monnier]

>     As far as I know, they're different things.  My code was specifically
>     testing CL stuff, even if it would be present at runtime, whereas
>     Stefan's would check for problems with functions not being available
>     at runtime generally.
> 
> The way I changed your code, it warns about run-time calls to CL
> functions from a file that doesn't necessarily load CL at run time.
> Stefan, in your code, is the criterion the same: call to a function
> in file X, from another file Y that doesn't necessarily load X at run time?

Mostly, but the devil is in the details.
It complaints when:
the file calls F and F is known to exist during compilation but
not at runtime (because it was made available through (eval-when-compile
(require 'foo))).

But it doesn't work so well if `bar' gets loaded by foo.elc
(and is thus marked as "not available at runtime") but is later
on required explicitly.  I don't check this case.

Also, if `foo' was already loaded when the compilation started,
the results depend on how it was loaded, so it doesn't work
too well with recompile-directory unless the file is either always
required directly or always required through `eval-when-compile'.


        Stefan