Re: byte compiler warnings when bootstrapping

[Stefan Monnier]

>       (require-lazily <feature>)

>     which would behave similarly to `require' except that the byte-compiler
>     would replace it with a bunch of autoloads.  so the package would only be
>     "required" when one of its functions was used.

> I have a bad feeling about that -- that it would produce scads of autoloads
> which are not needed.  Also, I don't think it is needed in any of the existing
> cases of warnings we would like to suppress.

The intention is for the byte-compiler to take the intersection of the
functions defined by <feature> and the functions used in the file being
byte-compiled.

So I expect that in general it will not lead to tons of autoloads that are
not needed.  Of course, some of the autoloads will not be needed because
some of those functions will only ever be called after calling another one
of those autoloaded functions (like the example of calling
info-read-node-name after calling `info').  And actually, the byte-compiler
could even optimize away some of those cases.


        Stefan