This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: C++ patch ping

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:30:10 -0700
Subject: Re: C++ patch ping
References: <20080428162806.GV2255@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <4816041B.9060300@codesourcery.com> <20080428172015.GW2255@devserv.devel.redhat.com>

Jakub Jelinek wrote:

So, if I should use error_operand_p instead, I guess it should be changed
consistently for all 3 cases, or none.

Oh, I see. My brain's being a little dumb. Yes, we can rely on cp_build_modify_expr to return an error_mark_node on error, and in that case it's fine as is. So, go with your original patch.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- C++ patch ping
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: C++ patch ping
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: C++ patch ping
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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