From 8d022fe21d265d3ab982ae2826d9d9e1438c3b68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "simonpj@microsoft.com" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:20:11 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Comment only --- compiler/stranal/WorkWrap.lhs | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 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 -- 1.7.10.4