Tim Mooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think a correct fix for this problem is to move the label to the very
> top of the while, just before the --i;.  That causes the label to be followed
> by a statement, and I think the overall effect is the same (though if I'm
> wrong, please let me know).

Your fix changes the semantics of the code since a jump to that label
will skip the loop test.  A fix which doesn't change the semantics is
an empty statement after the label:

cont_except: ;

Reply via email to