Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:33:07 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> > > I meant that NILP will be implemented as a binary comparison against
> > > zero, omitting the awkward test for symbols_with_position_enabled.
> 
> > Please don't write code that assumes Qnil is zero.  (Or maybe I still
> > misunderstand what exactly you mean by the above.)
> 
> Don't worry!  The new code merely assumes Qnil is a symbol, and leaves it
> to the compiler to optimise for Qnil being binary zero.

Once again, you cannot compare structures with == in portable C.  And
the Lisp_Object type can be struct.  As long as what you say above
doesn't mean that you compare with ==, I'm okay with what you propose.