Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.

[Markus Triska]

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?

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.