[Info-vax] yet another sys$qiow question

[John Reagan]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:49:45 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:

> In example 1, I've seen gcc remove the code for the second while loop
> completely because it will never be reached. (I sometimes use this
> construct during debugging by adding the first while loop in front of
> the real while loop to dump some registers and to stop the real while
> loop from executing).

All of the GEM-based compilers would remove that dead code.  On VAX, maybe BASIC or COBOL might leave it, but the rest would also remove it.