Richard Sandiford writes:
> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>> On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>
>>> As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
>>> combination of:
>>>
>>> 1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the addre
On 10/25/2012 04:06 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I see a potential bug here. We should not reject new equiv values for
base and index here. After we decided to use equiv it should be changed
everywhere as we remove ini
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Hi Vlad,
>>
>> As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
>> combination of:
>>
>> 1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the address
>> is exactly equal to BASE_L
On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
combination of:
1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the address
is exactly equal to BASE_LOC + INDEX_LOC + DISP (with null values
b
Hi Vlad,
As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
combination of:
1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the address
is exactly equal to BASE_LOC + INDEX_LOC + DISP (with null values
being equivalent to 0).
2) extract_address_regs allow
