Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

[Andreas Schwab]

On Jan 14 2017, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:19:12 +0100
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>> 
>> >> > The line number in the error message is bogus, it points to a require
>> >> > line (that's a known issue with byte-compiler error reporting, I
>> >> > think).
>> >> 
>> >> It's not bogus, since the error was raised while the byte-compiler
>> >> evaluated the form there.
>> >
>> > It's "bogus" in the sense that it isn't useful for finding the code
>> > which triggered the error.
>> 
>> It is as bogus as every Lisp error.
>
> On the contrary: most of them provide useful information about the
> error locus.  This one clearly didn't.

It accurately tells you the form that caused the error, something you
never get from a Lisp error.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, address@hidden
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."