This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch, Fortran] More clean-up with try-finally


Dear All,


>> Second, in gfc_trans_return, se.post is added to the code after the
>> exit jump -- maybe I did completely misunderstand something, but to me
>> this makes no sense (as it will not be executed anyway); I guess that
>> this just never really mattered. ?But I may be wrong -- so can this
>> line go? ?And if so, why can we be sure that se.post needs never be
>> handled? And if I'm wrong, why?
>
> I think this line can go.

I do not think that I agree.

I am hard put to do it right now but I rather think that it must be
possible to generate an integer-scalar-expression that generates a
post block.  It certainly does no harm to leave it in :-)

Cheers

Paul


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]