Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?

[Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>]

> On Sunday 17 October 2004 17:32, Kazu Hirata wrote:
> > Now, do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders these days?  If not, we
> > should do something like gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (to) != ERROR_MARK);.
> 
> I think we do.  We only don't do optimizations if errorcount or
> sorrycount is non-zero, but we do call rest_of_compilation on
> functions even after errors.  I don't know *why* we would want to
> expand any trees after errors, though...

The main rationaly has always been to get as many warnings as possible.
Perhaps we can weaken this now especialy on tree-profiling branch where
we will throw into tree optimizers everything we would do if we were
producing assembly and thus get all tree level warnings (and I would not
very trust the RTL level warnings to come out sane anyway)

Honza
> 
> Gr.
> Steven