From: Richard M. Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:00:04 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: (byte-after-unbind-ops): Delete byte-equal.
X-Git-Tag: emacs-20.3~1485
X-Git-Url: http://git.eshelyaron.com/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=43fd1680f924dbfdc3aa6a22dc05b6102354fc25;p=emacs.git

(byte-after-unbind-ops): Delete byte-equal.
---

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el
index 3453d1d71b6..86f7309d1b7 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el
@@ -1313,11 +1313,14 @@
 (defconst byte-after-unbind-ops
    '(byte-constant byte-dup
      byte-symbolp byte-consp byte-stringp byte-listp byte-numberp byte-integerp
-     byte-eq byte-equal byte-not
+     byte-eq byte-not
      byte-cons byte-list1 byte-list2	; byte-list3 byte-list4
      byte-interactive-p)
    ;; How about other side-effect-free-ops?  Is it safe to move an
    ;; error invocation (such as from nth) out of an unwind-protect?
+   ;; No, it is not, because the unwind-protect forms can alter
+   ;; the inside of the object to which nth would apply.
+   ;; For the same reason, byte-equal was deleted from this list.
    "Byte-codes that can be moved past an unbind.")
 
 (defconst byte-compile-side-effect-and-error-free-ops