Re: Bug in local spilling code

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19981029150445.A11870@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
  > On Wed, Oct 28, 1998 at 10:48:09AM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
  > > WIth this patch, the actual nonlocal goto performs better, but the setup
  > > overhead in the function containing the nonlocal label is increased.
  > > Functions that only contain one or two nonlocal labels should benefit
  > > from this change; this is less likely for functions that have more such
  > > labels.
  > 
  > We can reduce that by not tucking those labels into memory.  That also
  > gives us the oppurtunity to turn them into direct jumps on those machines
  > that can jump "arbitrarily" far.
I'm not particularly concerned about the performance of nonlocal gotos;
folks that really care about performance won't be using them anyway.

  > BTW, anyone ever notice that nonlocal goto and alloca can not coexist?
  > This isn't new to your patch, and I don't know that we care so very
  > deeply.  Certainly I can't think of a nice way around it.
I don't care enough about it either.  Just another one of those stupid corner
cases nobody thought about when adding support for nonlocal gotos.

Leave language design to people that actually know something about it!  Damn
RMS and his silly extensions.  Sorry, I had to get that off my chest....

jeff