This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] labels after returns
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:29:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] labels after returns
- References: <20040412203019.GB24781@redhat.com> <200404130726.i3D7QatQ007345@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 01:26:35AM -0600, law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <20040412203019.GB24781@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
> >On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:23:21AM -0600, law@redhat.com wrote:
> >> No, they are not fair game to remove. The labels are fair game to
> >> move though. [A user label which is not used in control flow altering
> >> ways must be preserved, but its location need not be preserved. ]
> >
> >No. Lets just kill them.
> Isn't that going to break the Linux kernel? IIRC it used these constructs
> in some of its error handling paths. Or has all that nonsense been fixed?
Um, if they're "fair game to move", then isn't the code likely to be
broken already?
Personally, I think that "fair game to move" is the worst choice we can
make. It means that the code can not possibly do whatever the user was
expecting it to do, except by coincidence. And there's no warning.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer