Stephen J Turnbull <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
...
A better alternative yet would be to see if we can figure out what
"spurious" Ebola warnings look like and trap them.
No can do. There are spurious Ebola warnings in the bytecompiler that
can never be removed (they're suppressed by a special hack). Anything
that looks something like
(memq 3 '(?a ?b ?c 1 2 3))
is going to generate spurious Ebola warnings, yet the code is most
likely correct.