Current code from comp-cstr.el:

(defun comp-normalize-valset (valset)
  "Sort and remove duplicates from VALSET then return it."
  (cl-sort (cl-remove-duplicates valset :test #'eq)
           (lambda (x y)
             (cond
              ((and (symbolp x) (symbolp y))
               (string< x y))
              ((and (symbolp x) (not (symbolp y)))
               t)
              ((and (not (symbolp x)) (symbolp y))
               nil)
              ((or (consp x) (consp y)
                   nil))
              (t
               (< (sxhash-equal x)
                  (sxhash-equal y)))))))


This part:
              ((or (consp x) (consp y)
                   nil))

Seems like a typo; as if this was intended:
              ((or (consp x) (consp y))
                   nil)


In practice, it means it's not sorting well. The presence of a cons can
even change how the other elements are sorted:

;; This produces: ((a . 1) 2 3)
(comp-normalize-valset '(
  2
  3
  (a . 1)
))

;; This produces: (2 3 (a . 1))
(comp-normalize-valset '(
  (a . 1)
  2
  3
))

;; This produces: (3 (a . 1) 2)
(comp-normalize-valset '(
  2
  (a . 1)
  3
))

Since all three examples use a list with the same elements, I would expect
the same result after sorting: a sorted list (by some definition of
sorted). Otherwise the function documentation must be adjusted.

I'm just reporting this because I was reading new code and found this part
hard to understand. I'm not familiar with the comp-cstr.el code or with how
this affects native compilation, or whether there's any bug. My example
doesn't represent how the actual code is used.

For context, the original intention was to avoid comparing conses with
sxhash-equal.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2024-02/msg00406.html