search for: isntruction

Hi, Just browsing through the asterisk.org site and I see in the setup isntructions that only Zaptel, Libpri and Asterisk need to be checked out.. Has Zapata been intergrated into one of the other packages? -- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr Powered by Outblaze

...nux-gnu arch i486 os linux-gnu system i486, linux-gnu status major 2 minor 3.1 year 2006 month 06 day 01 svn rev 38247 language R version.string Version 2.3.1 (2006-06-01) And here is one of the sequences of isntruction that returns an abberation : > x<-seq(0,1,by=0.01) > x[71] [1] 0.7 > which(x == 0.7) numeric(0) > x[71] == 0.7 [1] FALSE Or another version of (maybe) the same bug : > x <- 70 > x == 70 [1] TRUE > x <- x*0 > x <- 70 > x == 70 [1] TRUE > x<-x*0.01 &g...

Hello, Presumably I have two value v1 and v2 from two different basic block A and B. Now I need to insert to a printf to print those two values at the same time. This means I need to find a basic block to insert such a calling isntruction and at the same time, the basic block should be dominated by v1 and v2. Is there any easy way to find such a basic block? Cheers, Zheng

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> #ifdef xchgrz >> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */ >> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0, -4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory", "cc"); } while (0) >>

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> #ifdef xchgrz >> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */ >> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0, -4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory", "cc"); } while (0) >>

I've been trying for weeks to get winbind working with RedHat Linux 8.0. I've got everything setup per the winbind docs on http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/Samba-HOWTO-Collection.html#WINBIND. I've successfully joined my NT4 domain with smbpasswd -j DOMAIN -r PDC -U Administrator. Running wbinfo -u returns my domain user list, as well as wbinfo -g returning my domain groups. getent

Hi all, Please can anybody explain how communication(direct or indirect) happens between xen and guest os(windows) in full virtualization mode. Both from VMM to guest and from guest to VMM. Thanks and regards, Aditya. __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/

...PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: > > I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) > was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write > buffers. I suspect it could go either way. You want a small constant (for the isntruction size), but any small constant is likely to be within the current stack frame anyway. I don't think 0(%rsp) is particularly likely to have a spill on it right then and there, but who knows.. And 64(%rsp) is possibly going to be cold in the L1 cache, especially if it's just after a deep fun...

...t; > >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) > >> was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write > >> buffers. > > > > I suspect it could go either way. You want a small constant (for the > > isntruction size), but any small constant is likely to be within the > > current stack frame anyway. I don't think 0(%rsp) is particularly > > likely to have a spill on it right then and there, but who knows.. > > > > And 64(%rsp) is possibly going to be cold in the L1 cache, espec...

...t kernel.org> wrote: >> >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) >> was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write >> buffers. > > I suspect it could go either way. You want a small constant (for the > isntruction size), but any small constant is likely to be within the > current stack frame anyway. I don't think 0(%rsp) is particularly > likely to have a spill on it right then and there, but who knows.. > > And 64(%rsp) is possibly going to be cold in the L1 cache, especially > if it'...

...t kernel.org> wrote: >> >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) >> was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write >> buffers. > > I suspect it could go either way. You want a small constant (for the > isntruction size), but any small constant is likely to be within the > current stack frame anyway. I don't think 0(%rsp) is particularly > likely to have a spill on it right then and there, but who knows.. > > And 64(%rsp) is possibly going to be cold in the L1 cache, especially > if it'...

...== 2 || ShuffleVectorSDNode::isSplatMask(&M[0], VT) || isMOVLMask(M, VT) || isSHUFPMask(M, VT) || ... } We git rid of this call to isSHUFPMask, which currently happens during legalize. Instead of trying to see if shuffles are already legal, just run the isntruction selector and see what it can find. For everything else, we know by definition it's not legal and we have to manually lower it somehow, just like today. The only difference is that we do it after (or in conjunction with) isel instead of before it. This will eliminate a lot of confusing and re...

Dear The Expert, I am very new with this, I don't understand why my Windows 2000 Prof PC failed when trying to register as member of domain "LINUX".. but I am able to login by using Windows 9x client , below is my /etc/samba/smb.conf I need advise.. thanks a lot in advance [global] workgroup = LINUX server string = Samba Server printcap name = /etc/printcap load printers = yes

...::isSplatMask(&M[0], VT) || > isMOVLMask(M, VT) || > isSHUFPMask(M, VT) || > ... > } > > We git rid of this call to isSHUFPMask, which currently happens during > legalize. Instead of trying to see if shuffles are already legal, just > run the isntruction selector and see what it can find. For everything > else, we know by definition it's not legal and we have to manually > lower it somehow, just like today. The only difference is that we do > it after (or in conjunction with) isel instead of before it. This will > eliminate a lot...

...;> >>>> >>> >>>>From your log file, it looks like the RH still uses >>> >>> >>>>the pam_unix module to authenticate. Have you >>>>changed >>>>the pam configuration to use winbindd following the >>>>isntruction in section 12.5.3.6 ? >>>>--- Khanh Tran <khanh@slc.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I've been trying for weeks to get winbind working >>>>>with RedHat Linux 8.0. >>>>>I've got everything setup...

...;> >>>> >>> >>>>From your log file, it looks like the RH still uses >>> >>> >>>>the pam_unix module to authenticate. Have you >>>>changed >>>>the pam configuration to use winbindd following the >>>>isntruction in section 12.5.3.6 ? >>>>--- Khanh Tran <khanh@slc.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I've been trying for weeks to get winbind working >>>>>with RedHat Linux 8.0. >>>>>I've got everything setup...

On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >>> 1. We have special target-specific operators for certain shuffles in X86, >>> such as X86unpckl. > >> It also eliminates a lot of fragility. Before doing this, X86 >> legalize would have to be very careful to specifically form shuffles >> that

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> 1. We have special target-specific operators for certain shuffles in X86, >> such as X86unpckl. > It also eliminates a lot of fragility. Before doing this, X86 > legalize would have to be very careful to specifically form shuffles > that it knew isel would turn into (e.g.) unpck operations. Now > instead of