Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.

[Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > 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!

After looking at this, I don't think it is practical to fix the line
number.  However, I changed the warning to print the entire form,
which should make it much easier to figure out where the problematic
code is (in this case, even if the form has been changed by previous
optimizations, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what the
original form was).