Cool, I've been wondering when this would get incorporated.
================ Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:41-42 @@ -43,1 +40,4 @@ +See :ref:`IteratorLimitations` for an example of an incorrect transformation +when the maximum acceptable risk level is set to `risky`. + ---------------- "an incorrect transformation"? That section has multiple. Which one are you referring to? ================ Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:134-136 @@ -120,1 +133,5 @@ +Limitations +=========== + +Comments ---------------- Please add some introductory text explaining to the user what they can expect to learn by reading this section, and why they would want to read it. ================ Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:149-150 @@ +148,4 @@ + +Iterators +^^^^^^^^^ + ---------------- This section title is too generic. Maybe "risky loop invariance assumptions"? (and then start the section by saying that "if -risk=risky, then transformations are done assuming...") ================ Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:221-223 @@ +220,5 @@ + +The following transformation is performed at the ``-risk=safe`` level. If we had +directly used the container instead of the pointer or reference, the +transformation would have only been applied at the ``-risk=risky`` level. + ---------------- Can you give the user a bit more insight into why? ================ Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:74-75 @@ -71,1 +73,4 @@ + for (iterator it = container.begin(), e = container.end(); it != e; it++) + cout << *it; + ---------------- Please put this and the other small cleanups/additions in a separate path (you can commit it directly). No need to sneak them in this patch. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D552 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
