search for: miis

----- Original Message ---- > From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> > To: Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za> > Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Robert Backhaus <robbak@robbak.com> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12:03 AM > Subject: Re: Packet corruption in re0 > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:43:22AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: >

Hi all, I have a pass to break critical edges of Machine Basic Blocks, but I just discovered a bug (when compiling code for x86). The problem is 'jumpl *%reg'. I don't know how to update the jump table for this type of instruction. The code that I had (see below) does not update the jump table, and the actual branch keeps jumping to the old basic block, instead of the new.

Fernando, The code there should be more or less functional, though it's not currently used by anything. Eventually it should probably be moved to a method on MachineBasicBlock. The API breakage you're seeing is because some methods moved around. Feel free to fix it. :-) --Owen On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > >

I'm running into a situation where a bogus bonded interface named "bond0" is being created, in addition to the desired "bond2" interface. Can anyone confirm this? Anyone know why it's happening or what I do to get rid of it? I wanted to start my numbering scheme at 2 instead of 0, which I didn't think would be a problem. As you can see, I have no reference

Hi LLVMers, what is the status of breaking critical edges in machine functions? I just compiled the top of the LLVM tree, and I found llvm/CodeGen/BreakCriticalMachineEdge.h. But this file seems not to be up-to-date with the other classes in the top of the tree. For instance, it calls isTerminatorInstr on llvm::TargetInstrInfo, but this method is no longer there. If I want to break

Sorry about the tardiness of my reply. My mail client has playing tricks with me. :-) I am assuming the issue has nothing to do the branch to jumptable instructions but rather the MachineJumpTableInfo associated with every MachineFunction? If so, please take a look at BranchFoldiing.cpp for an example. Evan On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > >

Dear guys, I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new basic blocks are creating infinite loops. Could someone help me fixing the code below? It is creating assembly like this one below. Block LBB1_9 was inserted to break the critical edge between blocks LBB1_3 and LBB1_8. But it changes the semantics of the original program, because, before, LBB1_8 was falling

Hi, This pass is similar to the one in BreakCriticalEdges.cpp, but it works for MachineFunction's, instead of Functions. The existence of critical edges complicates many optimizations. When doing register allocation, you don't necessarily have to remove critical edges (you can use conventional SSA-form, for instance. See "Translating Out of Static Single Assignment Form. SAS

On 10/10/2016 09:31 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > oh. Yeah, the entire "net-tools" package is deprecated. I tend to forget which of the two (ethtool or mii-tool) is in that set. # Avoid using any of these: $ rpm -ql net-tools

Thanks, Evan. Actually I've solved my problem with some hints from Dale and Anton. At least I think I've solved it. I had to add one method to TargetInstrInfo to tell me when an instruction is an indirect jump - TargetInstrInfo::tii.isIndirectJump(opcode). When that is the case, I update the jump table using: // Change jumps to go to the new basic block:

I want to be able to do two things with LLVM (both just before code emission): 1. Insert a MachineBasicBlock just before a MachineBasicBlock. There is a function called AddPredecessor(). However, the comment says that it does not update the actual CFG. I want to redirect all CFG edges that are incoming to this MachineBasicBlock to the new one I create, and add just one outgoing edge (no branch)

CentOS 6.2......... Why do the physical interfaces report (correctly) that they're negotiated at 1000Mb/s, but when I `cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0` I get 100Mbps for the member interfaces, and when I ` mii-tool bond0` I get 10Mbps for the bond? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ethtool em1 Settings for em1: Supported ports: [

I four nodes setup to do active-backup bonding and the drivers loaded for the bonded network interfaces vary between tg3 and e100. All interfaces with the e100 driver loaded report errors much like what you see here: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth2, disabling it e100: eth2: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for

Hi, I have been playing this weekend with bonding on PCI netcards and found that all of netcards I have, but old 3com, do not support MII. So bonding is not going to happen with them. Do you have some pci netcards supporting MII successfully running on bonging? Thanks, David Hrb??

Hi, I'm having lots of difficulties with BCM5719, which is the default network card of HP Proliant DL 360 G8 servers. I can get a few ping replies before I get a couple of these: bge0: watchdog timeout -- resetting bge0: watchdog timeout -- resetting Then everything hangs. Can not log in using ssh.

Hi! Maybe, I found a bug of xen. My system: - domain0 - gentoo - xen-devel-3.0, kernel 2.6.12.5-r1 - domain1 - debian - kernel 2.6.12.5-r1 (2 interface: vif1.1 = eth0 (0.0.0.0), vif1.2 = eth1 (10.0.1.1 + gw 10.0.1.2)) Bridge: xen-br0 (config as 10.0.1.2) include (vif1.2, vif0.0) xen-br1 (config as 0.0.0.0) include (vif1.1, peth0) On server domain1 I use a pppoe server. If a send a pppoe request

# modinfo ixgbe filename: /lib/modules/2.6.32-431.el6.x86_64/kernel/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe.ko version: 3.15.1-k license: GPL description: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver author: Intel Corporation, <linux.nics at intel.com> srcversion: B390E9D9904338B52C2E361 I have updated this to 3.18.7-1 as well, same results # ifconfig bond1 |grep error

The problem is that you are inserting block 9 in the wrong spot. mf.getLastBlock() returns the block with the greatest number which may have nothing to do with the ordering. Why not use the end iterator (mf.end) to insert? -Tanya On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Dear guys, > > I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new

I don't understand the following code snippet in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp. Why changing the type of the opreand from a virtual register to a machine register? The register number (reg) is still a virtual register index (>1024). bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) { // perform a final pass over the instructions and compute spill // weights, coalesce

Tested on identical hardware (Dell SC1425) with a non-xen kernel, it wroks fine. However under Xen, this is what happens: xen1 ~ # ethtool eth0 Settings for eth0: No data available xen1 ~ # mii-tool eth0 SIOCGMIIPHY on ''eth0'' failed: Operation not supported Any ideas? Thanks, -- Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk _______________________________________________