> BTW maybe we should replace
>
>     31:     /on_failure_jump_loop to 37
>     34:     /jump to 9
>
> with
>
>     31:     /on_failure_dont_jump_loop to 9

In the mean time the patch below recognizes the above pattern, which
gives me code which is safe (it should both always terminate and should
never apply the optimization if it's not valid) yet does find the
optimization in all the cases where I expected it.


        Stefan