Skip to content

[SimplifyCFG] Better aligned a comment. #109307

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2024
Merged

Conversation

scampanoni
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Sep 19, 2024

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Simone Campanoni (scampanoni)

Changes

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109307.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp (+3-3)
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
index c63618d9dd1297..2046ac4cc3ef52 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
@@ -405,9 +405,9 @@ static InstructionCost computeSpeculationCost(const User *I,
 }
 
 /// If we have a merge point of an "if condition" as accepted above,
-/// return true if the specified value dominates the block.  We
-/// don't handle the true generality of domination here, just a special case
-/// which works well enough for us.
+/// return true if the specified value dominates the block.  We don't handle
+/// the true generality of domination here, just a special case which works 
+/// well enough for us.
 ///
 /// If AggressiveInsts is non-null, and if V does not dominate BB, we check to
 /// see if V (which must be an instruction) and its recursive operands

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 19, 2024

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

@scampanoni scampanoni closed this Sep 30, 2024
@scampanoni scampanoni reopened this Sep 30, 2024
@scampanoni scampanoni merged commit 5d19d55 into llvm:main Sep 30, 2024
10 of 11 checks passed
Copy link

@scampanoni Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants