This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFA: hook doc patch (49/112): TARGET_SCHED_DFA_NEW_CYCLE


On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> - I suggest swapping the second and third sentences, so that it
>>   becomes less ambigous when *@var{sort_p} is used (which I think
>>   is in general, not just when returning a value of zero), but it's
>>   your call.
> AFAICT from reading the code, sort_p is in fact only used when a 
> non-zero value is returned, so the current sentence order makes sense.

Cool, thanks for checking.

Then, how about

  "Instead, the processor cycle is advanced and if *@var{sort_p}..."

here to avoid any ambiguity?

With that, and the other comments in my previous mail, I think we
can tick of this patch. :-)  Thanks!

Gerald


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]