From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-268679-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9154 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2010 20:35:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 9136 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2010 20:35:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f47.google.com) (209.85.161.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:35:16 +0000
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so4912019fxm.20        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.177.5 with SMTP id e5mr458978mup.91.1279744513694; Wed, 21 	Jul 2010 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.8.15 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C46139B.4070609@net-b.de>
References: <4C435709.9030007@domob.eu>	<4C46139B.4070609@net-b.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinlqbMeNpyb-Bo3x2Ds-Z9GjSa9wSr3fpBvdOHt@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] More clean-up with try-finally
From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>
To: Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
Cc: Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>, Fortran List <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, 	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 2010-07/txt/msg01675.txt.bz2

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. =A0But I may be wrong -- so can this
>> line go? =A0And 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