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 error has been hit
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,"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 21:16:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa RFC/RFA?] Stop compilation earlier when syntax error has been hit
- References: <200402261934.i1QJY9IP015525@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <1077824706.16194.473.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 14:34, law@redhat.com wrote:
> > In message <1077817574.16194.455.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Diego Novillo wr
> > ites:
> > >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 expans
> > >ion
> > >> going crazy when given a function with undefined labels. What about the at
> > >tached
> > >> 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 afte
> > >r
> > >> 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?
> > We've been over this several times.
> >
> > The question at hand is should we stop compilation when we encounter
> > an error. The answer has been no, we do our best to continue compilation,
> > even if we do not generate code.
> >
> I don't understand. How does this answer my question? With Jan's patch
> we would miss emitting warnings that we are emitting now. My question
We won't miss them when no error has been issued earlier, just when the
error occured we won't produce them that seemed harmless to me.
Honza
> is then, where do we move them so that we don't.
>
>
> Diego.