Re: Review: improve adjust_varying (issue204046)
Larry Gritz <l...@...>
On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM, <cku...@...> <cku...@...> wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/204046/diff/1/6#newcode386I think it's not. I added it at one point that I was tracking down a bug and never removed it (figuring that it couldn't hurt, and might protect us from subtle bugs some day). I can remove it. http://codereview.appspot.com/204046/diff/1/6#newcode534Because that branch is for init ops. Um... In retrospect, I guess it can/should be set for both clauses. Let me try it and if nothing breaks I'll do it. http://codereview.appspot.com/204046/diff/1/4#newcode110We push/pop runflags for other reasons. Such as in the main run() function. In that case, and possibly other future ones, pushing runflags doesn't necessarily imply that some points have been turned off, only that you want to save the existing runflags in case something later mucks with them. So I do enter/exit_conditional specifically in the places where we reduce to subsets of runflags, which is where it's needed. http://codereview.appspot.com/204046/diff/1/2#newcode67Sure, why not. -- Larry Gritz l...@...
|
|