It's "opcode" not "opCode".
Similarly "Opcode" not "OpCode".
This appears to be the general worldwide consensus on the matter. Other
residents of my office didn't seem to mind one way or the other how it's
spelled in our code, but for whatever reason, it really bugged me.
Change-Id: Ia0b73d19c54aefc0f543a9c9451dda22ee876a59
diff --git a/vm/compiler/codegen/arm/LocalOptimizations.c b/vm/compiler/codegen/arm/LocalOptimizations.c
index 724fdb7..33e1e41 100644
--- a/vm/compiler/codegen/arm/LocalOptimizations.c
+++ b/vm/compiler/codegen/arm/LocalOptimizations.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
/*
* Saw a real instruction that the store can be sunk after
*/
- if (!isPseudoOpCode(checkLIR->opCode)) {
+ if (!isPseudoOpcode(checkLIR->opcode)) {
sinkDistance++;
}
}
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
continue;
}
- if (firstLoad && (EncodingMap[thisLIR->opCode].flags & IS_LOAD)) {
+ if (firstLoad && (EncodingMap[thisLIR->opcode].flags & IS_LOAD)) {
/*
* Ensure nothing will be hoisted in front of this load because
* it's result will likely be needed soon.
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@
* Saw a real instruction that hosting the load is
* beneficial
*/
- if (!isPseudoOpCode(checkLIR->opCode)) {
+ if (!isPseudoOpcode(checkLIR->opcode)) {
hoistDistance++;
}
}
@@ -491,7 +491,7 @@
* Saw a real instruction that hosting the load is
* beneficial
*/
- if (!isPseudoOpCode(checkLIR->opCode)) {
+ if (!isPseudoOpcode(checkLIR->opcode)) {
hoistDistance++;
}
}