On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote:
> num_vtable_args was an int that we manually incremented/decremented, > so it might have been negative. I am > assuming that a vec<tree>.length() can never be negative. So before > the else-clause was explicitly checking that the value was 0 or 1 > (since the if-condition takes all values greater than 1. Now I am > implicitly assuming that when we get to the else-clause the value must > be 0 or 1, because the if-condition took care of all values greater > than 1, and values less that zero cannot occur. Is that assumption > incorrect? Ah, thanks. > Do you need to review this again after I fix your suggestion, or can I > go ahead and commit it after? No. If the changes bootstrap and pass validation, you can commit the modified patch. Diego.
