r180982 - Attempt to un-break the gdb buildbot.

[Adrian Prantl]

Oh! You were talking about the old, commented out code. All this time I thought the second comment referred to the quoted block below it.

As for the increment -- I found the preincrement slightly more ugly than the increment assignment. No strong feelings about it, though. Feel free to change it.

thanks,
Adrian

On May 7, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Was more in the "incrementing and testing in an if statement" is
> somewhat error prone. I mean, why not just increment and then check?
> 
> Also why no preincrements for the increments by 1?
> 
> -eric
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>> I agree about the commented out code, but what’s the story about the side effects? -- isEvaluatable is const, right?
>> 
>> On May 7, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> -    if (++NumStopPoints == 1)
>>>> -      FirstStopPoint = Loc;
>>>> +    //if (++NumStopPoints == 1)
>>>> +      LastStopPoint = Loc;
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Eh? Commented out code? Also, side effects in an if conditional? Ew.
>>> 
>>>> +  NumReturnExprs += 1;
>>>>  if (RV == 0 || RV->isEvaluatable(getContext()))
>>>> -    ++NumSimpleReturnExprs;
>>>> +    NumSimpleReturnExprs += 1;
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Eh?
>>> 
>>> -eric