search for: rummaged

Hi Duncan, Karel, On 14 October 2011 08:22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Karel, > >>>> > const unsigned* >>>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>>> const { >>>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>>> > + >>>> > + if (MF) { >>>> > + const

Hi Duncan, On 10/14/11 03:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> > const unsigned* >> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >> const { >> > + bool ghcCall = false; >> > + >> > + if (MF) { >> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() ==

ok. dont tell me i am lame. i already know. my question is.. where is the default stream name kept? i have rummaged through icecast.conf and ices.conf, and to no avail, i cannot find it. with no coding required on my part.. streaming works on my Alpha. wohoo! ja. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a...

Hi Karel, >>> > const unsigned* >>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>> const { >>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>> > + >>> > + if (MF) { >>> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >>> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false);

Hi Gabriel, ... > Summarizing, I have two questions: 1) is the CallGraph analysis "working as > intended" here?; and 2) what would be the correct approach > to modifying the proposed analysis in order to detect that randlc() is being > called in that CallInst ? the reason that the callgraph analysis does not try to understand indirect calls like this is that other passes

Hi Duncan, > const unsigned* > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > + bool ghcCall = false; > + > + if (MF) { > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > + } > This bit looks dubious. Why do you need to do it? What exactly? We need

Hi Karel, > > const unsigned* > > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > > + bool ghcCall = false; > > + > > + if (MF) { > > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > > + } > > > This bit looks dubious. Why do you

On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 10:31 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > Could you bisect ? I would love to point finger upstream to the DMA > folk who made changes to that API without testing with GPU. Rummaging a bit, it might be... nouveau_bo_new() ... ttm_dma_pool_alloc_new_pages() dma_alloc_attrs() ops->alloc() == x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent() x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent() flags |=

PS: It is possible that the C front-end doesn't need to explicitly produce BUILT_IN_POW because it is auto-synthesized somehow from a call to "pow". I wouldn't know. One way to find out is to compile a testcase and rummage around inside the gcc trees when they hit llvm-convert.

Under help(matrix) it is written: 'is.matrix' tests if its argument is a (strict) matrix. It is generic: you can write methods to handle specific classes of objects, see InternalMethods. Further down, under "Details", the meaning of "strict" is explained more explicitly: 'is.matrix' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' is a matrix

I've rummaged through the archives and documentation and have yet to find references to nbsd or mention of how to implement overhead paging using chan_oss as mentioned in the list previously. I suspect that one would use a soundcard in the PBX system and feed the output to speakers and/or PA system. Would someon...

I am trying to categorize the machine instructions based on associated static (i.e., as encoded in .td file) machine description and the corresponding APIs. I would like to perform appropriate actions based on the kind of instruction in a tool that I am working on. For example, I'd like to distinguish between memop instructions involving immediate vs register. While it appears that I would be

Hi David, > The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what > registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the > original function as all the other calling conventions use the same > set of callee and caller save registers, so GHC is the only one that > needs to differentiate. shouldn't the caller also know what registers are callee

According to Wikipedia: "In 1980 the first version of S was distributed outside Bell Laboratories and in 1981 source versions were made available." but I've been unable to locate any version of S online. Does anyone have a copy, somewhere, rusting away on an old hard disk or slowly flaking off a tape? I've had a rummage round the CMU Statlib on archive.org but no sign of it,

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1409 Bug ID: 1409 Summary: nft manpage makes confusing reference to logical operators Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: nft

Hey, hoping I can get some guidance on how this works. I've got a running samba standalone setup. On one of my shares, I want to preserve the ACL of files as they come from the client (Win 7), in essence acting as a file backup. My setup for this share is currently: valid users = @wheel public = no writeable = yes vfs objects = btrfs acl_xattr # acl_xattr: ignore system acls = yes # map

Does agent forwarding work with DSA keys? I'm using 2.2.0p1 on RedHat Linux 6.2 (Alpha) and Solaris 2.6 (SPARC). If I ssh-add my RSA key into the local agent and ssh to another machine, the agent connection is forwarded properly. (I can say "ssh-add -l" and see my keys.) If I ssh-add my DSA key into the local agent and "ssh -2" to another machine, the agent connection

> > I am wondering about the status of GSoc this year. The mailing list seems to be rather quiet on the topic. Has anyone thought of project ideas? > We just received confirmation that LLVM was accepted for this year GSoC. > The ideas list, as usual, is placed at > http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html (it also contains links to > subproject's ideas pages). > > Please

On 01.09.20 17:22, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 07:52:40AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >>> I think this looks mostly OK, except for one misnamed parameter >>> below. Unfortunately, the last non-coherent parisc was the 700 >>> series and I no longer own a box, so I can't test

On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, > >> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the >> original function as all the other calling conventions use the same >> set of callee and caller save registers, so GHC is the only one