Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "d520".
Did you mean:
520
2008 Mar 17
1
problems with rgl in Ubuntu 'gutsy'
Dear R users/gurus,
I have recently installed Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy) on my Dell Latitude D520.
First time for me, as I have always used Fedora.
R installation using "apt" has proceeded fine, both for r-base and r-base-dev.
Next, I need to install various other packages, "rgl" being first in the line.
I have sorted some preliminaries by installing headers for X11 and Me...
2011 May 09
0
Xen and WakeOnLan
Hi,
Does anyone ever tried wake on lan with Xen?
I have a laptop Dell Latitude D520 that is a resource on a pool. I enabled
wakeonlan on BIOS and used ethtool to enable the ''g'' flag on the eth0
network interface. When I use ''halt'' and try to send a magic packet
(wakeonlan -i MASK MAC) through another LAN machine, nothing happens. I even
tried en...
2019 Nov 08
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
Do you know whether it has been fixed on the 8.0.1 release?
Scott
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:45 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com>> wrote:
The one blocking issue that existed in the past has been fixed. I haven’t had time to do any work on it lately, but I’m not aware of any fundamental problems that would make it not work on x86.
--
2019 Dec 23
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
...reover, this phi seems to be introducing false def-use relationships into the DFG. For example, the phi introduces the following dependency chain, which as far as I can tell is not valid:
// R11D is def'ed, def ID is d524
s523: SUB32rr [d524<R11D>(d519,,u1470"):, d525<EFLAGS>!(d520,d533,):, u526<R11D>(d519):, u527<ESI>(d508):]
...
// d524 is used in the phi node to def d1117, corresponding to unnamed register #1073741833
p1116: phi [+d1117<#1073741833>(,d645,u648):, u1118"<#1073741833>(d579,b477):, u1466"<#1073741833>(d578,b477):, u1467...
2020 Jan 10
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
...reover, this phi seems to be introducing false def-use relationships into the DFG. For example, the phi introduces the following dependency chain, which as far as I can tell is not valid:
// R11D is def'ed, def ID is d524
s523: SUB32rr [d524<R11D>(d519,,u1470"):, d525<EFLAGS>!(d520,d533,):, u526<R11D>(d519):, u527<ESI>(d508):]
...
// d524 is used in the phi node to def d1117, corresponding to unnamed register #1073741833
p1116: phi [+d1117<#1073741833>(,d645,u648):, u1118"<#1073741833>(d579,b477):, u1466"<#1073741833>(d578,b477):, u1467...