[tree-ssa] Patch ping

[Jason Merrill]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:47:12 -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:

>  >> If we're going to go this way, then I'd want to push this concept to all
>  >> uses of COND_EXPR.  Either the ARMs are statements or they are not.  Having
>  >> them be statements in one context and raw labels in others is a bad design
>  >> and a long term recipe for disaster. 

>  >I dont think we can make it always a label, or the "containerness" is
>  >lost to the front end, which is where they really want it.

> Right.  That's the fundamental problem.  I really don't want to see the
> arms of a COND_EXPR have different meanings at different times.  That's
> bad.

There's no need for different meanings at different times; we could just
allow labels in the arms of COND_EXPR at all times, and say that the goto
is implied.

Jason