Re^3: Why isn't return removed from optree?

Ah-ha! I found a situation where return can't simply be omitted.

>perl -MO=Concise,f -e"sub f { return ($x,$y) }"
main::f:
6  <1> leavesub[1 ref] K/REFC,1 ->(end)
-     <@> lineseq KP ->6
1        <;> nextstate(main 1 -e:1) v ->2
5        <@> return KP ->6
2           <0> pushmark s ->3
-           <1> ex-rv2sv sK/1 ->4
3              <#> gvsv[*x] s ->4
-           <1> ex-rv2sv sK/1 ->5
4              <#> gvsv[*y] s ->5
-e syntax OK

>perl -MO=Concise,f -e"sub f { ($x,$y) }"
main::f:
6  <1> leavesub[1 ref] K/REFC,1 ->(end)
-     <@> lineseq KP ->6
1        <;> nextstate(main 1 -e:1) v ->2
5        <@> list KP ->6
2           <0> pushmark s ->3
-           <1> ex-rv2sv sK/1 ->4
3              <#> gvsv[*x] s ->4
-           <1> ex-rv2sv sK/1 ->5
4              <#> gvsv[*y] s ->5
-e syntax OK
[download]

That gives me something to look at.

Comment on Re^3: Why isn't return removed from optree? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why isn't return removed from optree? by merlyn (Sage) on Dec 29, 2008 at 11:17 UTC
But how are they different? Those both do exactly the same thing in both a scalar and list context, as far as I could tell. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker	[reply]
Re^5: Why isn't return removed from optree? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 29, 2008 at 20:33 UTC
Are you suggesting that the optimizer should replace the `return` with `list`? I don't remember seeing it replace one op for another except in constant folding.	[reply] [d/l] [select]