From: simonpj@microsoft.com <unknown>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:20:11 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Comment only
X-Git-Url: http://git.megacz.com/?p=ghc-hetmet.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8d022fe21d265d3ab982ae2826d9d9e1438c3b68

Comment only
---

diff --git a/compiler/stranal/WorkWrap.lhs b/compiler/stranal/WorkWrap.lhs
index 05c3148..8ddea65 100644
--- a/compiler/stranal/WorkWrap.lhs
+++ b/compiler/stranal/WorkWrap.lhs
@@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ an INLINABLE pragma could make a program a bit less efficient,
 because you lose the worker/wrapper stuff.  But I don't see a way 
 to avoid that.
 
-Note [Don't w/w inline small non-loop-breker things]
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Note [Don't w/w inline small non-loop-breaker things]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 In general, we refrain from w/w-ing *small* functions, which are not
 loop breakers, because they'll inline anyway.  But we must take care:
 it may look small now, but get to be big later after other inlining