From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: Neil Booth , mike stump Cc: "gdr@codesourcery.com" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at" , "rodrigc@mediaone.net" , "zack@codesourcery.com" Subject: Re: ICE in change_address at emit_rtl.c Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <60630000.1006677408@warlock.codesourcery.com> References: <20011124113047.A769@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01185.html Message-ID: <20011125004100.1xZCrOYmMwCVR35JgHGB8prhqwKHDc-z5X0cRYPsCvc@z> --On Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:30:47 AM +0000 Neil Booth wrote: > mike stump wrote:- > >> Then you generate a spew of bad messages making gcc substantially >> worse from the users perspective, or you in the end rediscover why >> error_mark_node exists. > > I'm happy to waste a few days rediscovering that, then 8-) It's just > got too invasive and ill-defined for my liking. e.g. you mentioned it > in operations, but it also creeps into types and other things. > > Do other compilers written in C have something equivalent? Yes. I know two other successful compiler front ends quite well, and both have a similar notion. However, the places in which it can appear are better documented, and they use the approach I advocate (i.e., ERROR_MARK_TYPE, ERROR_MARK_DECL, etc.) rather than just a single node. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com