PATCH: Tree checking failure in C++
Tue Oct 24 08:46:00 GMT 2000
Actually, I think there's a pretty clear existing preference for using
Finally, the `error_mark_node' test is perhaps better in two ways:
- It's probably faster, since it doesn't involve any data access.
Not that it's a big issue but on most RISC machines, and any PIC
configuration, the value of "error_mark_node" needs *two* data reference:
one to pick up the address from a table and oe to get the current value.
So testing the code is faster.
- It reminds us that there is supposed to be only one node with
ERROR_MARK set, ever.
- Finally, since ERROR_MARK tends to be zero, lots of random
storage ends up looking like an ERROR_MARK, which can mask
real errors. Using error_mark_node makes it easier to find
Likewise, except we probably ought to change ERROR_MARK so it's nonzero
in any case.
More information about the Gcc-patches