# HG changeset patch
# User Richard M. Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
# Date 892778404 0
# Node ID ef61a9126a73c4fda1668f6f7f616282c21a54b2
# Parent  62d9b205daadf6b4074f9e047e128bd1038b6000
(byte-after-unbind-ops): Delete byte-equal.

diff -r 62d9b205daad -r ef61a9126a73 lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el	Fri Apr 17 01:53:31 1998 +0000
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el	Fri Apr 17 02:00:04 1998 +0000
@@ -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