Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.

[David Kastrup]

Markus Triska <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It points to c-end-of-defun, but the line number and described
>> called function are nonsensical.
>
> The line number is that of the first form of the function the
> questionable code is in. That makes sense, since the problem is in
> that function. It is *not* the call of char-before that's bogus. It's
> that its return value isn't used in the caller, c-end-of-defun. Any
> line of that function could contain the oversight. What line number
> would in your view make more sense to report?

The line number of the call to char-before, of course.  The line
number of the whole enclosing function is plain useless.  If the
function contain dozens of calls of char-before, the message would not
help at all in figuring out which one was involved.

> And yes, improving the optimiser to report `char-before' instead of
> `char-after' would be nice. I doubt that it would help anyone who
> can't find the problem with the current (quite good) message though.

So apparently I am not anyone.  I reported this warning without being
able to figure out where it came from, remember?

And I am not exactly such an idiot when it comes to programming that I
can be dismissed as irrelevant.

-- 
David Kastrup