On 1/6/21 1:09 PM, David Howells wrote: > Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 1/6/21 11:44 AM, David Howells wrote: >>> Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> These two loops iterate over the same data, i believe returning here is all >>>> that is needed. >>> But if the first loop is made to support a new type, but the second loop is >>> missed, it will then likely oops. Besides, the compiler should optimise >>> both >>> paths together. >> You are right, I was only considering the existing cases. > Thanks. Can I put that down as a Reviewed-by?
Yes, please. Reviewed-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > > David >
