From 8d9afc4e2b9ac69f4808cdc9b55bbfb84d92f7b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kazu Hirata Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:42:00 +0000 Subject: ABOUT-NLS: Follow spelling conventions. * ABOUT-NLS: Follow spelling conventions. * ChangeLog: Likewise. * ChangeLog.1: Likewise. * ChangeLog.2: Likewise. * ChangeLog.3: Likewise. * ChangeLog.4: Likewise. * ChangeLog.5: Likewise. * ChangeLog.6: Likewise. * FSFChangeLog.10: Likewise. * FSFChangeLog.11: Likewise. * c-common.c: Likewise. * c-lex.c: Likewise. * c-objc-common.c: Likewise. * cppexp.c: Likewise. * cppinit.c: Likewise. * cpplex.c: Likewise. * doloop.c: Likewise. * flow.c: Likewise. * function.c: Likewise. * integrate.c: Likewise. * loop.c: Likewise. * reg-stack.c: Likewise. * reload.h: Likewise. * ssa.c: Likewise. From-SVN: r57188 --- gcc/doloop.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'gcc/doloop.c') diff --git a/gcc/doloop.c b/gcc/doloop.c index 9bddb92..f3b3029 100644 --- a/gcc/doloop.c +++ b/gcc/doloop.c @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ doloop_valid_p (loop, jump_insn) If the absolute increment is not 1, the loop can be infinite even with LTU/GTU, e.g. for (i = 3; i > 0; i -= 2) - Note that with LE and GE, the loop behaviour is undefined + Note that with LE and GE, the loop behavior is undefined (C++ standard section 5 clause 5) if an overflow occurs, say between INT_MAX and INT_MAX + 1. We thus don't have to worry about these two cases. @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ doloop_valid_p (loop, jump_insn) ??? We could compute these conditions at run-time and have a additional jump around the loop to ensure an infinite loop. However, it is very unlikely that this is the intended - behaviour of the loop and checking for these rare boundary + behavior of the loop and checking for these rare boundary conditions would pessimize all other code. If the loop is executed only a few times an extra check to -- cgit v1.1