search for: rtls

Hi, I am trying to run solaris 10 (9/10) on Xen 3.4 (centos5.5 as dom0) in HVM mode. I can see the realtek 8139 network adapters when I do pciscan but ''ifconfig -a'' just lists loopback device. I can load rtls drivers but still these realtek interfaces are not available. I found a link which does say The rtls driver from Realtek still uses version 0 interfaces that are now unsupported in Solaris release. did anyone face/fix the same problem and how? ~Shri _______________________________________________...

On 30 January 2014 20:33, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Basically, compiler-rt contains the only runtime libraries we ship with > Clang. The sanitizers are runtime libraries shipped with clang (they have > some version dependence), so they went in compiler-rt. Now they are > starting to feel much larger than compiler-rt, so perhaps they should be > split out.

...'00:16:3e:35:68:ca''/> </interface> from #xm list solarisHVM -l (device (vif (bridge ) (mac 00:16:3e:35:68:ca) (type ioemu) (uuid 35db826b-987a-b4cf-ae98-7d6a197e7650) ) ) from within the domain #ifconfig -a rtls0: flgas-201000843<UP,BROADCAST, RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4,CoS> mtu 1500 index 2 inet 10.6.142.179 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.6.142.255 ether 0:16:3e:35:68:ca From the output I can see that the rtls0 mac address in the domU is the same from xm list and from the dumpxml on do...

This was reported by me (and most likely others). Here is the exchange about this. The reason the problem is visible in Delphi is that Borland (C++ and Delphi) initialize the FPU differently from other RTLs. Also, there is another problem that will be visible with Delphi --------------------------------------------------------- ------------- Yes, that's definitely a bug in the vbr code, there's an easy fix for that. Just replace: qual += .3*log(ener/60000.0); with qual += .3*log((ener+1)/60000...

On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:02 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > "Daniels, Marcus G" <mdaniels at lanl.gov> writes: > >> Anyway, I thought the question here amounted to how to ensure that >> people can make binaries of LLVM libraries and a working clang >> executable on Windows. > > No, it's more than that. Many (most?) groups integrate clang

...increase the signal-to-noise ration on bugs and crashes, but ultimately, I would be ok with it, as a first approach. > > I don't see any compelling reason to split the sanitizers out today. I think the sanitizer guys would probably take a patch to CMakeLists.txt to disable the sanitizer RTLs. One organizational thought to add: For us, the sanitizers contain behaviors/syscalls that are not valid on consumer hardware. They perform "debug" functionality and thus can only operate on special developer kits. Additionally, we need to put this type of code into a dynamic library in...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:56:25 +0100 Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 12 September 2012 09:38, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > I personally would first have a look at approach '2'. > > While I normally argue to leave the IR as it is (since it's a compiler > IR, not a magical one), I can see some trends going on that

...r than offloading). > > c) Install https://github.com/clang-omp/libomptarget (running ‘make' > should do it). This library implements the API to control offloading. It > also contains a set of plugins to some targets we are testing this with > - x86_64, powerpc64 and NVPTX - in ./RTLs. You will need to implement a > plug in for your target as well. The interface used for these plugins is > detailed in the document proposed in > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-April/084986.html .You > can look at the existing plugins for a hint. In a nutshell you would...

Roel, You have to checkout and build llvm/clang as usual. For runtime support you'll have to build the libomptarget and make a plugin for your target. Samuel can help you some more. As for the OpenMP examples I can recommend you the http://openmp.org/mp-documents/OpenMP4.0.0.Examples.pdf look into the target constructs. Sergos On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at

On 30 January 2014 21:50, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I don't see any compelling reason to split the sanitizers out today. > Clear, next. I think the sanitizer guys would probably take a patch to CMakeLists.txt to > disable the sanitizer RTLs. > Right. I'll first make it build and test, than I'll disable via a flag, since other people can work in parallel to make it work on ARM. I'm told that ASan supports ARM, but it's maybe not production quality, so > I don't think disabling all sanitizers on non-x86 arch...