On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't disagree, but it is also not easy to do. Do you consider that a
> precondition for this patch?
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/Format/Format.cpp:300
> @@ +299,3 @@
> + // previous result unless we have hit the optimatization (and thus
> + // returned UINT_MAX) and are now computing for a lower StopAt.
> + unsigned SavedResult = I->second.first;
> ----------------
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > s/lower/higher/
> No longer applicable
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/Format/Format.cpp:298
> @@ +297,3 @@
> + if (I != Memory.end()) {
> + // If this state has already been examined, we can safely return the
> + // previous result unless we have hit the optimatization (and thus
> ----------------
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > I think it would be easier for me to read if this were written
> positively, instead of with "unless".
> How about this?
>
Better.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
