Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?

[Mark Mitchell]

Jan Hubicka wrote:

>>On Sunday 17 October 2004 17:32, Kazu Hirata wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Now, do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders these days?  If not, we
>>>should do something like gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (to) != ERROR_MARK);.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think we do.  We only don't do optimizations if errorcount or
>>sorrycount is non-zero, but we do call rest_of_compilation on
>>functions even after errors.  I don't know *why* we would want to
>>expand any trees after errors, though...
>>    
>>
>
>The main rationaly has always been to get as many warnings as possible.
>
Which is because of the design bug wherein the optimizers issue 
diagnostics. :-)

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com