npostavs@users.sourceforge.net writes: > Alex writes: > >> npostavs@users.sourceforge.net writes: >> >>> Does it also work when loading the elc version of the test file? (try >>> 'make check TEST_LOAD_EL=no') >> >> Oh, it doesn't load the elc version by default? That's surprising; I >> think that should be documented in the test README. >> >> I get 3 test failures with TEST_LOAD_EL=no, but I don't believe they're >> because of me. On a mostly clean master (d014a5e15) those 3 also error. >> One of them is simple to fix (the (require 'subr-x) should not be inside >> eval-when-compile in dom-tests). > > Ah, the `should' blocks inlining during compilation. Is that necessary? > Probably yes if we expect to catch errors during macroexpansion I guess. Can you get errors by expanding inlined functions? Macros are expanded at compile-time with the current patch. If there are any macroexpansion errors, then the form is altered to be (error ). Perhaps inline functions could work similarly. Here's a diff to my patch that uses byte-compile-inline-expand. This fixes the dom-tests case. Do you think it's worth it?