bug#53227: master: Wrong error message with M-: (funcall).

[Andreas Schwab]

On Jan 13 2022, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>>     (`(funcall . ,_) form)            ;bug#53227
>>>
>>> is then present to make sure the first change doesn't worsen the
>>> rest of the resulting macroexpanded code.
>>
>> I don't understand.  How much better than (funcall) can it get?
>
> I'm not talking about the quality of the code output by
> `macroexp--expand-all` but about the quality of the code *of*
> `macroexp--expand-all`.

You mean this?

@@ -534,16 +534,14 @@ byte code for macroexp--expand-all:
 431    stack-ref 3
 432    call      2
 433    return    
-434:28 stack-ref 2
-435    stack-ref 5
-436    stack-ref 3
-437    call      2
-438    return    
-439:29 stack-ref 1
-440    stack-ref 4
-441    stack-ref 2
-442    call      2
-443    return    
-444:30 stack-ref 2
-445    car-safe  
-446    return    
+434:28 stack-ref 4
+435    car-safe  
+436    return    
+437:29 stack-ref 1
+438    stack-ref 4
+439    stack-ref 2
+440    call      2
+441    return    
+442:30 stack-ref 2
+443    car-safe  
+444    return    

Hardly worth optimizing for a case that never occurs, IMHO.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."