The processing path is mainly useful for debugging macros, so if you don't write macros, you can ignore the processing path. Consider this example:
Compiling results in this error message:(defun foo (n) (dotimes (i n *undefined*)))
Note that do appears in the processing path. This is because dotimes expands into:In: DEFUN FOO (DOTIMES (I N *UNDEFINED*)) -> DO BLOCK LET TAGBODY RETURN-FROM ==> (PROGN *UNDEFINED*) Warning: Undefined variable: *UNDEFINED*
The rest of the processing path results from the expansion of do:(do ((i 0 (1+ i)) (#:g1 n)) ((>= i #:g1) *undefined*) (declare (type unsigned-byte i)))
In this example, the compiler descended into the block, let, tagbody and return-from to reach the progn printed as the actual source. This is a place where the ``actual source appears in explanation'' rule was applied. The innermost actual source form was the symbol *undefined* itself, but that also appeared in the explanation, so the compiler backed out one level.(block nil (let ((i 0) (#:g1 n)) (declare (type unsigned-byte i)) (tagbody (go #:g3) #:g2 (psetq i (1+ i)) #:g3 (unless (>= i #:g1) (go #:g2)) (return-from nil (progn *undefined*)))))