This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa RFC/RFA?] Stop compilation earlier when syntax errorhas been hit
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:46:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa RFC/RFA?] Stop compilation earlier when syntax errorhas been hit
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <20040222010151.GU24652@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 20:01, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> while working on the CFG expansion I've again hit the problem of RTL expansion
> going crazy when given a function with undefined labels. What about the attached
> patch? It brings failures of
>
> g++.old-deja/g++.other/vaarg3.C (test for errors, line 23)
> g++.old-deja/g++.other/vaarg3.C (test for errors, line 26)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 105)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 114)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 123)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 132)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 141)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 159)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 177)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 195)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 222)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 231)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 244)
> gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (test for errors, line 89)
> gcc.dg/cleanup-1.c (test for excess errors)
>
> These testcases checks for errors/warnings output during RTL expansion after
> parse error has been hit. I can deal with this by splitting the testcases into
> multiple ones so they don't hit multiple types of errors. Would that sound
> acceptable?
>
I don't follow. Wouldn't this mean that we are losing warnings?
Diego.