inline

[Stephen Weeks]

> OK, if you'd rather not walk the statements, that is fine with me.
> I'll put the necessary hack in implement-handlers to avoid generating
> the useless SetHandlers.

Actually, I don't see how this will help.  The x86-codegen might
perform a simplification that causes the only nontail call that refers
to some handler H to be dead.   As far as the SSA is concerned, the
SetHandler H refers to a live handler.

So I, see one of the following possibilities: the x86-codegen either
needs to

	1. not do simplifications that change the liveness of handlers
		and we will require the backend to produce code with
		then necessary invariants
or	2. turn SetHandlers of unreachable handlers into no-ops
or	3. keep a bogus label for unreachable handlers

I think that (1) is hard.  I am happy with either (2) or (3).  I just
saw your recent mail, which seems to suggest (2), which is fine by me.