Displaying 20 results from an estimated 37626 matches for "modifiables".
Did you mean:
modifiable
2020 Jul 18
2
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
drivers are still aware of only these older
format modifiers which do not differentiate
between different variations of the block linear
layout. When the format modifier support flag was
flipped in the nouveau kernel driver, the X.org
modesetting driver
2020 Jul 30
2
[PATCH v3] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
drivers are still aware of only these older
format modifiers which do not differentiate
between different variations of the block linear
layout. When the format modifier support flag was
flipped in the nouveau kernel driver, the X.org
modesetting driver
2020 Jul 27
2
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On 7/23/20 9:06 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
>> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
>> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
>> drivers are still aware of only these older
>> format modifiers which do not
2007 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
I've been unable to bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 or -4.2 for x86_64
for some weeks now. The current problem is this:
[x86_64-mod-dbg]: ./xgcc -B./
-B/install.modified.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-isystem /install.modified.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include
-isystem
2020 Jul 29
2
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 12:48, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 04:51, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/23/20 9:06 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Accept the
2007 Sep 20
2
[LLVMdev] Building on x86-64
I made my first attempt to build on an x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu system.
Is this supposed to work? I get libtools errors (below). The problem seems
to be that it finds a 32-bit libltdl rather than the 64-bit libltdl.
/home/dag> ls /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0
/usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0
/home/dag> ls /usr/lib64/libltdl.so.3.1.0
/usr/lib64/libltdl.so.3.1.0
Is this a known problem?
2020 Jul 30
0
[PATCH v4] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
drivers are still aware of only these older
format modifiers which do not differentiate
between different variations of the block linear
layout. When the format modifier support flag was
flipped in the nouveau kernel driver, the X.org
modesetting driver
2020 Jul 24
0
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
> drivers are still aware of only these older
> format modifiers which do not differentiate
> between different variations of the block linear
>
2010 Apr 17
1
Error message when trying to install Rcmdr
I am trying to install Rcmdr on my ubuntu machine, but keep getting the
following error messages:
ERROR: failed to lock directory
?/home/thedoctor/R/i486-pc-linux-gnu-library/2.10? for modifying
Try removing ?/home/thedoctor/R/i486-pc-linux-gnu-library/2.10/00LOCK?
ERROR: failed to lock directory
?/home/thedoctor/R/i486-pc-linux-gnu-library/2.10? for modifying
Try removing
2007 Oct 08
0
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
On Oct 8, 2007, at 12:50 PM, David Greene wrote:
> I've been unable to bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 or -4.2 for x86_64
> for some weeks now. The current problem is this:
>
> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: ./xgcc -B./
> -B/install.modified.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-
> linux-gnu/bin/
> -isystem /install.modified.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-
>
2020 Jul 30
0
[PATCH v3] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:26:17AM -0700, James Jones wrote:
> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa
> drivers are still aware of only these older
> format modifiers which do not differentiate
> between different variations of the block linear
> layout. When the format
2020 Jul 29
0
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 04:51, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/23/20 9:06 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
> >> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
> >> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers.
2020 Jul 29
0
[PATCH v2] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:40:13PM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 12:48, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 04:51, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/23/20 9:06 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at
2011 Apr 14
1
modify particular factor levels
Dear list,
I wish to modify programmatically only a few factor levels, according
to a named list. I came up with this function,
modify.levels <- function(f, modify=list()){
## levels that will not be changed
names.old.levels <- setdiff(levels(f), unlist(modify))
## as a named list
old.levels <- as.pairlist(names.old.levels)
names(old.levels) <- names.old.levels
## union
2013 Jan 21
4
[LLVMdev] Embed LLVM/Clang in our project
On 1/21/2013 2:01 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Ashok Nalkund <ashoknn at qti.qualcomm.com> writes:
>
>> I was using the find_package(LLVM llvm/share/llvm/cmake) and
>> llvm_map_components_to_libraries(REQ_LLVM_LIBRARIES jit native) to get
>> the libraries to link against. This works well for the libLLVM*
>> libraries, but how do I implement similar find stuff for
2007 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote:
>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s: Assembler messages:
>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s:36: Error: `(%esi,%edi)' is not a
>> valid 64
>> bit base/index expression
>
> Looks like llvm is generating invalid x86-64 assembly. Can you add a -
> emit-llvm to the xgcc line and generate a reproducible test case?
> Please
2020 Jul 18
1
[PATCH] drm/nouveau: Accept 'legacy' format modifiers
On 7/17/20 12:47 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:57:57AM -0700, James Jones wrote:
>> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK()
>> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace
>> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers.
>>
>> Tested with Xorg 1.20 modesetting driver,
>> weston at c46c70dac84a4b3030cd05b380f9f410536690fc,
>> gnome
2001 Aug 07
3
Packages: What expressions are allowed outside/before .First.lib?
Sorry for this long message. The two first questions asks for general coding
standard when creating packages, the third one asks if the .R files are
concatenated in lexical order or not, the fourth question is a "how-to"
question. All questions are related. If there is a reference where I can
read about this please tell me, because then I could repost a more
restricted set of questions.
2019 Dec 11
2
[PATCH 3/3] drm/nouveau: Support NVIDIA format modifiers
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 4:04 PM James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Allow setting the block layout of a nouveau FB
> object using DRM format modifiers. When
> specified, the format modifier block layout and
> kind overrides the GEM buffer's implicit layout
> and kind. The specified format modifier is
> validated against he list of modifiers supported
2008 Jul 04
4
[LLVMdev] Exact meaning of byval
Hi,
after working with llvm for a while, I'm still a little confused with the
meaning of the 'byval' attribute. From the langref:
"This indicates that the pointer parameter should really be passed by value to
the function. The attribute implies that a hidden copy of the pointee is made
between the caller and the callee, so the callee is unable to modify the value
in the callee.