This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for option
- To: "RenE J.V. Bertin" <rjvbertin at hotmail dot com>
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for option
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:25:31 -0400
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <LAW2-F65kegVItwarf300007506@hotmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:09:51PM +0200, RenE J.V. Bertin wrote:
> >And, we would make the compiler more reliable; there are parts of the RTL
> >generation code that tend to choke on erroneous input and it is hard to fix
> >all of them. It is easier simply to guarantee that code will be
> >valid before it hits the RTL generator.
>
> So then the only discussion remaining is how to name the option and whether
> it should be on by default, I guess...
Do we really need an extra option for this? Why not just make this behavior
happen regardless? I can't think (off the top) of a situation where you
/want/ bad input to try and actually generate code.
I don't suppose it would be as easy as noticing an error_node result and
setting flag_syntax_only to true for subsequent RTL generation to notice?
Phil
--
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
- anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC