This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:23:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <20041017.113233.21930965.kazu@cs.umass.edu> <200410171814.22481.stevenb@suse.de> <20041017165846.GG14689@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

Jan Hubicka wrote:

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.

Which is because of the design bug wherein the optimizers issue diagnostics. :-)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

References:
- Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
  - From: Jan Hubicka

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]