search for: 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...

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...

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 differentiate >> between different variations of the block linear >> layout. When the format modifier support...

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

...;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. Existing Mesa > > >> drivers are still aware of only these older > > >> format modifiers which do not differentiate > > >> between different variations of the block linear > >...

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?

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...

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 > layout. When the format modifier support flag was > flippe...

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

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- >

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 modifier support flag was > flippe...

...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. 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...

...te: > > > > > > 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 differentiate > > > >> between different variations of the blo...

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

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

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

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 & KDE wayland desktops from Ubuntu 18.04, >> and sway 1.5 > > Just bikeshed...

...e should have "executable" code? Is it also true that "outside" .First.lib, only function declarations and objects assignments such as '.conflicts.OK <- TRUE' should be used? Q2. Is it considered ok to use attr() outside .First.lib? I would like set an attribute 'modifiers' to all my functions as they are declared. I have tried it and it work. This is an example of how one of my generated package files looks like: callMe0 <- function(x) cat("hey\n") attr(callMe0, "modifiers") <- c("private") callMe <- function(x)...

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 > by the target display hardware. > > Signed-off-by: James Jones <j...

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.