This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)

To: Manfred Hollstein <manfred at s-direktnet dot de>
Subject: Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)
From: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
Date: 09 Mar 1998 00:56:41 -0800
Cc: egcs-bugs at cygnus dot com, Manfred dot Hollstein at ks dot sel dot alcatel dot de
References: <ord8g0w0kd.fsf@iguacu.dcc.unicamp.br> <9803061108.AA00995.cygnus.egcs.bugs@lts.sel.alcatel.de> <u94t1bi1fu.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com> <199803071149.MAA00774@saturn.s-direktnet.de>

>>>>> Manfred Hollstein <manfred@s-direktnet.de> writes:

>> That can't be right; you can't treat error_mark_node like a TREE_LIST.

> Perhaps, you're wright. But that treatment isn't new due to my patch. I only
> added the the different error message, the while loop was already there.

Agreed.  The old code didn't recognize that we could get an error_mark_node
there.  Do you mind fixing it?

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)
  - From: Manfred Hollstein

References:
- Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: Patch for better diagnostic (was: Re: Bug in MI?)
  - From: Manfred Hollstein

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