On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 10:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On November 8, 2015 3:58:57 AM GMT+01:00, "Bin.Cheng"
>> <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +inline bool
>>>> +iv_common_cand_hasher::equal (const iv_common_cand *ccand1,
>>>> + const iv_common_cand *ccand2)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return ccand1->hash == ccand2->hash
>>>> + && operand_equal_p (ccand1->base, ccand2->base, 0)
>>>> + && operand_equal_p (ccand1->step, ccand2->step, 0)
>>>> + && TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (ccand1->base))
>>>> + == TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (ccand2->base));
>>>>
>> Yes. Patch is OK then.
>
>
> Doesn't follow the formatting rules though in the quoted piece.
Hi Bernd,
Thanks for reviewing. I haven't committed it yet, could you please
point out which quoted piece is so that I can update patch?
Thanks,
bin
>
>
> Bernd
>
