[tree-ssa RFC/RFA?] Stop compilation earlier when syntax error has been hit

[law@redhat.com]

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.

jeff