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: ;
- Re: guile 1.3.4 & CVS: label without statement bug in... Mikael Djurfeldt
- Re: guile 1.3.4 & CVS: label without statement b... Mikael Djurfeldt
- Re: guile 1.3.4 & CVS: label without statement b... Mikael Djurfeldt
