[PATCH] D130891: [Docs] Improve cycle and closed path definitions

[Jannik Silvanus via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jsilvanus added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CycleTerminology.rst:28
+   with respect to this particular DFS. The header is always an entry node.
+4. In any depth-first search starting from the entry, the set of cycles
+   found in the CFG is the same. These are the *top-level cycles*
----------------
foad wrote:
> Would it make sense to swap 3 and 4, so you can define the "top-level cycles" without even mentioning DFS?
You mean one could define "top-level cycles" without mentioning a particular DFS choice?

The current order has the advantage that entries and headers are adjacent, resembling their close relationship.
But I do not have a strong opinion here.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D130891/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D130891