From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289848-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5691 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2011 20:37:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 5591 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2011 20:37:18 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx.meyering.net (HELO mx.meyering.net) (82.230.74.64)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:37:04 +0000
Received: by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister, from userid 1000)	id 23CAC601AF; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:37:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
In-Reply-To: <m3aafn71v1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon,	18 Apr 2011 14:15:14 -0600")
References: <87zkp9zmq0.fsf@rho.meyering.net>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1103051908320.3878@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>	<877hc9r8w6.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net>	<877hc9pkhp.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net>	<AANLkTimAfkfmmfxrNp4w_wD2rGiQ7x07esgtVDT_-8Cj@mail.gmail.com>	<87ei5w8nt7.fsf@rho.meyering.net>	<BANLkTi=Dw4Qwh0cr1hfscpKYpkQp0SaVkg@mail.gmail.com>	<87ei4z7g2i.fsf@rho.meyering.net>	<BANLkTik6dEJCtdF8-XAMJQr4BaW9aFWvjQ@mail.gmail.com>	<87hb9v49mm.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net>	<m3aafn71v1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <8762qb47ps.fsf@rho.meyering.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg01452.txt.bz2

Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net> writes:
>
> Jim> Since v3, I've rebased these and moved the fortran changes to precede
> Jim> these (changing gfc_free to free introduced a few more instances
> Jim> that this transformation deals with).  As mentioned before, the
> Jim> conditional-removing transformation was done mechanically with
> Jim> two manual corrections.  One to deal with a following "else",
> Jim> and another to restore a conditional that should not have been
> Jim> removed.
>
> I'm not sure if this needs a review (I forgot what happened on the last
> thread) but for avoidance of doubt, the java bits are ok.

Thanks.  I wasn't sure either.
I'll presume it's ok and commit tomorrow if no one says otherwise,
since some people actually did review (and spot the invalid
transformation that I've since corrected).