On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
For now, we check validity of offset by computing the maxi
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> For now, we check validity of offset by computing the maximum offset then
>>> checking if
>>> offset is smaller than the
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> For now, we check validity of offset by computing the maximum offset then
>> checking if
>> offset is smaller than the max offset. This is inaccurate, for example,
>> some tar
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> For now, we check validity of offset by computing the maximum offset then
> checking if
> offset is smaller than the max offset. This is inaccurate, for example, some
> targets
> may require offset to be aligned by power of 2. This pat
Hi,
For now, we check validity of offset by computing the maximum offset then
checking if
offset is smaller than the max offset. This is inaccurate, for example, some
targets
may require offset to be aligned by power of 2. This patch introduces new
interface
checking validity of offset. It al
