From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-104175-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26780 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2004 16:13:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26755 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2004 16:13:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO x93.infopact.nl) (212.29.160.93)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Oct 2004 16:13:50 -0000
Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (70-90.ipact.nl [82.210.90.70])
	by x93.infopact.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9HGDl5p019317;
	Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:13:47 +0200
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: Kazu Hirata <kazu@cs.umass.edu>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:32:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <20041017.113233.21930965.kazu@cs.umass.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20041017.113233.21930965.kazu@cs.umass.edu>
Organization: SUSE Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200410171814.22481.stevenb@suse.de>
X-CanItPRO-Stream: NoScan
X-Spam-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 1120366 - 61e96f455f74
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca)
X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00673.txt.bz2

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...

Gr.
Steven