[llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html

[Chris Lattner]

Changes in directory llvm/docs:

GetElementPtr.html updated: 1.13 -> 1.14
---
Log message:

Fix validation problem


---
Diffs of the changes:  (+3 -3)

 GetElementPtr.html |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


Index: llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html
diff -u llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html:1.13 llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html:1.14
--- llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html:1.13	Wed Aug 16 22:25:07 2006
+++ llvm/docs/GetElementPtr.html	Wed Aug 16 22:26:50 2006
@@ -88,8 +88,8 @@
   <pre>
   X = &Foo[0].F;</pre>
   <p>Sometimes this question gets rephrased as:</p>
-  <blockquote><i>Why is it okay to index through the first pointer, but 
-      subsequent pointers won't be dereferenced?</i></blockquote> 
+  <blockquote><p><i>Why is it okay to index through the first pointer, but 
+      subsequent pointers won't be dereferenced?</i></p></blockquote> 
   <p>The answer is simply because memory does not have to be accessed to 
   perform the computation. The first operand to the GEP instruction must be a 
   value of a pointer type. The value of the pointer is provided directly to 
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@
   <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"><img
   src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401" alt="Valid HTML 4.01!" /></a>
   <a href="http://llvm.org">The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure</a><br/>
-  Last modified: $Date: 2006/08/17 03:25:07 $
+  Last modified: $Date: 2006/08/17 03:26:50 $
 </address>
 </body>
 </html>