On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@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.cheng@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?
Ah, the part quoted in review message, I was stupid and tried to find
quoted part in my patch...  I can see the problem now, here is the
updated patch.

Thanks,
bin