From 09bc65e62bb157141f0d3c6bc9c3f23cc4f83050 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Lattner Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:20:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] fix some issues Jeff Yasskin noticed git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@74512 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- docs/CodingStandards.html | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/CodingStandards.html b/docs/CodingStandards.html index 84503ca6795..ff29b39d6b7 100644 --- a/docs/CodingStandards.html +++ b/docs/CodingStandards.html @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ A convenient way to do this is like so:

semantics: if the container (a basic block in this case) is being mutated, then "BB->end()" 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.

Why do we prefer the second form (when correct)? Writing the loop in the @@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ expression was actually something like: "SomeMap[x]->end()" 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.

-

The second (even bigger) issue is that writing the loop in the second form +

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