On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:32:02PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com writes:
+ bool changed = false;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+if (changed)
Why do you use |= ...? Isn't it equivalent
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch does two things: it fixes PR56466 by calling fix_loop_structure
in case we're changing a loop, and secondly, it makes verifiyng
loops in the unroller cheaper: there's no need to verify each loop,
we can do it once after all transformations
Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com writes:
+ bool changed = false;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+if (changed)
Why do you use |= ...? Isn't it equivalent to just = (which is
more clear) for a boolean?
Thanks,
-miles