This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] More clean-up with try-finally
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Daniel Kraft <d at domob dot eu>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:35:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] More clean-up with try-finally
- References: <4C435709.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4C46139B.email@example.com>
>> 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 :-)