Re: RFA: Clarify requirements of process_address

2012-10-25 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 12-10-25 4:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Vladimir Makarov writes: On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Hi Vlad, When testing other patches, I was misled by: /* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has two registers than it can have two of them.

Re: RFA: Clarify requirements of process_address

2012-10-25 Thread Richard Sandiford
Vladimir Makarov writes: > On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Hi Vlad, >> >> When testing other patches, I was misled by: >> >>/* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has >> two registers than it can have two of them. We should also >> not worr

Re: RFA: Clarify requirements of process_address

2012-10-25 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Hi Vlad, When testing other patches, I was misled by: /* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has two registers than it can have two of them. We should also not worry about scale for the same reason. */

RFA: Clarify requirements of process_address

2012-10-25 Thread Richard Sandiford
Hi Vlad, When testing other patches, I was misled by: /* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has two registers than it can have two of them. We should also not worry about scale for the same reason. */ which I took to mean that process_address only handles pre-