search for: rummaging

...What exactly? We need to test if this is GHC calling convention or not >>>> and if >>>> its, then return different set of callee saved regs. What exactly >>>> don't you like >>>> on this piece? >>> >>> I don't see anyone else rummaging around inside the original function >>> for the >>> calling convention, so why do you need to? So I wrote the first version of the GHC calling convention for X86, and also basically the code in question above as its copied from the X86 implementation. I had a look over the code a...

...us. Why do you need to do it? >> >> What exactly? We need to test if this is GHC calling convention or not >> and if >> its, then return different set of callee saved regs. What exactly >> don't you like >> on this piece? > > I don't see anyone else rummaging around inside the original function > for the > calling convention, so why do you need to? Based on knowledge of calling convention we return different set of callee saved registers. For example on ARM and when GHC CC is used, we return empty set. > If this information is useful to &gt...

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

...t;>> >>> What exactly? We need to test if this is GHC calling convention or not >>> and if >>> its, then return different set of callee saved regs. What exactly >>> don't you like >>> on this piece? >> >> I don't see anyone else rummaging around inside the original function >> for the >> calling convention, so why do you need to? > > Based on knowledge of calling convention we return different set of callee saved > registers. For example on ARM and when GHC CC is used, we return empty set. yeah, but here MF is...

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

...t; + } > > > This bit looks dubious. Why do you need to do it? > > What exactly? We need to test if this is GHC calling convention or not and if > its, then return different set of callee saved regs. What exactly don't you like > on this piece? I don't see anyone else rummaging around inside the original function for the calling convention, so why do you need to? If this information is useful to have, why isn't it in the machine function? Ciao, Duncan.

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 |= __GFP_NOWARN; swiotlb_alloc_coherent(..flags) swiotlb_alloc_coherent(..flags) attrs = (flags &am...

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.

...eful to mention, under the documentation for matrix() and data.matrix(), that as.matrix(tab) is equivalent to as(tab, "matrix", strict=FALSE) (is that strictly correct?) I often want to use xtable() with tables. There is no method defined for the class "table". After a bit of rummaging, I found that I can use: xtable(as(tab, "matrix")). John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Bioinformation Science, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian Nation...

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 someone please point me to some procedures or documentation to acomplish overhead paging?

...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 able to accomplish this by rummaging through the instruction operands, a combination of the flag(s) MayLoad/MayStore and MoveImm seemed attractive/clean/efficient(?), if the instruction description did indeed use the flags. Hence the question. Thanks, Bharadwaj On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmai...

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,

...ons are actually possible? https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1202#c1 explicitly states that disjunctions are definitely not supported, so logical OR, and XOR are right out, and given that I'd say NAND almost certainly is too. The only combining operator for matches is AND. Also, rummaging through the grammar file seems to confirm that there are only _bitwise_ operators. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-buglog/at...

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

...rded 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 does not forward. (Ssh-add -l can't find the agent, there is no SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment variable.) I've been rummaging in the code, and I see two sections in ssh.c where X forwarding is handled. One of the sections also handles agent forwarding. I tagged one of the debug() calls about "Requesting X11 forwarding" in order to distinguish between them at runtime. The section that does not appear to do age...

> > 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