From 43fd1680f924dbfdc3aa6a22dc05b6102354fc25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Richard M. Stallman" Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:00:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] (byte-after-unbind-ops): Delete byte-equal. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 -- 2.39.2