6502/llvm-6502
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git synced 2025-04-12 23:37:33 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix some issues Jeff Yasskin noticed

Browse Source 
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@74512 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Chris Lattner 2009-06-30 06:20:03 +00:00
parent 0af39ea9ef
commit 09bc65e62b
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
docs/CodingStandards.html
View File

@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ A convenient way to do this is like so:</p>
semantics: if the container (a basic block in this case) is being mutated, then
"<tt>BB->end()</tt>" may change its value every time through the loop and the
second loop may not in fact be correct. If you actually do depend on this
behavior, please write the loop in the second form and add a comment indicating
behavior, please write the loop in the first form and add a comment indicating
that you did it intentionally.</p>
<p>Why do we prefer the second form (when correct)? Writing the loop in the
@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ expression was actually something like: "<tt>SomeMap[x]->end()</tt>" and map
lookups really aren't cheap. By writing it in the first form consistently, you
eliminate the issue entirely and don't even have to think about it.</p>
<p>The second (even bigger) issue is that writing the loop in the second form
<p>The second (even bigger) issue is that writing the loop in the first form
hints to the reader that the loop is mutating the container (a fact that a
comment would handily confirm!). If you write the loop in the second form, it
is immediately obvious without even looking at the body of the loop that the