Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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.

I agree.

I don't know how hard it will be to make this useful line number
appear, but someone should investigate and _try_ to fix it.
Let's have no more of the argument that this is not a bug!