similar to: D-Link DGE-550SX support

Has anyone had any luck getting this to work? The kernel provide skge, sky2 and sk98lin modules all fail to load. I was able to download the latest version from the syskonnect.de site, and with some hacking/klduging of their install script managed to compile the module in there (a newer version of sk98lin, it seems) which recognised the card... but this isn't really sustainable 'cos new

Has anyone gotten lapack to work on centos 7? If so, how? Most recently, I installed lapace-devel and let yum bring in what it wanted. Whenever I try to link, I get a long list of undefined references ending with /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/liblapacke.so: undefined reference to `dgeevx_' [hennebry at localhost test]$ nm -D /usr/lib64/libblas.so | grep dge

Hi, I am really new to edge R and I have used it to calculate gene expression with RNASeq data comparing 2 different conditions. I used a P value of 0.05 and I got a list of DGE contigs up and down regulated. WhatI was wondering is how to convert the logFC value that appear in the output of the exact test. Is it a log2 base? Is fold 2 change considered as cutoff? I am trying to find this info on

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am running Centos 4.3 with the 2.6.9-42.EL.jwltest.156 kernel (to get the skge module) The card is recognized, and I can see traffic when I utlilize wireshark in promiscuous mode including attempts at responding to ARP requests. 9.608260 DellPcba_b8:d7:63 -> Broadcast ARP Who has 172.20.15.25? Tell 172.20.15.27 9.608281 D-Link_87:55:06

Sorry if this question is a repeat, I never got an answer the last time I asked :) How does appending linkage interact with dead global elimination? From what I understand, appending linkage arrays are stitched together by the linker. Dead global elimination usually happens after linking, so if any of those arrays are "live", then any globals that they point to will be live as well. My

I'm currently looking at hardware specs for a samba server, its' job will be to hold general office files, cad / solidworks files along with approximately 40 outlook PST files that will be opened off the server. Here are the current specs I'm looking at.. AMD 2600XP Asus A7N8X Deluxe nVidia Serial ATA 2 x 512 MB PC2700 DDR 333 = 1024MB ASUS S520/Generic 52X CD-ROM (OEM) ASUS GrForce4

Sorry, the real e-mail is this: [root at pc ~]# systemctl status named.service ● named.service - Berkeley Internet Name Domain (DNS)    Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/named.service; enabled; vendor preset: disabled)    Active: active (running) since Mon 2018-06-11 08:54:10 AST; 12min ago   Process: 1276 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/named -u named -c ${NAMEDCONF} $OPTIONS (code=exited,

Good Afternoon! I had thinking that maybe is a permissions problem. Then, here the files permissions: [root at pc ~]# ls -l /etc/resolv.conf -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 78 Jun  7 17:32 /etc/resolv.conf------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [root at pc ~]# ls -l /etc/hosts -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 193 Dec  4  2017 /etc/hosts

We are currently implementing the backends for other solvers (you can follow the progress here: https://github.com/mikhailramalho/clang). So far we got Boolector, MathSAT and Yices ready. CVC4 should be done soon. When used to refute bugs, they all give roughly the same results: a ~5% speedup if there are refuted bugs or a ~5% slowdown if no bug is refuted. I've only tried to analyze one

On 9 March 2015 at 17:30, Tobias Grosser <tgrosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > If my memories are right, one of the critical issues (besides > other engineering considerations) was that parallelism metadata in LLVM is > optional and can always be dropped. However, for > OpenMP it sometimes is incorrect to execute a loop sequential that has been > marked parallel in the source

Hello, Below is a proposal for a GSoC project that I would like to work on this year. Your input and feedback is much appreciated. Background: ========= My name is Kareem Ergawy and I currently work as part of the PIR project. PIR is an extension of the IR to support fork-join parallelism that is currently under review [1, 2, 3, 4]. Goals: ===== As a GSoC project, here I propose an

Hi all, Our intranet's WAN interface just stopped working yesterday, and I can't figure it out. The machine has a Gigabyte motherboard, with on-board RTL-8110SC/8169SC Gigabit Ethernet and D-Link PCI NIC for the LAN side. I can get into the LAN side without an issue, but can't see the WAN side at all. [root at intranet ~]# ifconfig eth0 up eth0: unknown interface: No such device

<mehdi.amini at apple.com>, Bcc: Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20170224221713.GA931 at arch-linux-jd.home> Ping. PS. Are there actually people interested in this? We will continue working anyway but it might not make sense to put it on reviews and announce it on the ML if nobody cares. On 02/24,

Dear all, This RFC proposes three new LLVM IR instructions to express high-level parallel constructs in a simple, low-level fashion. For this first stage we prepared two commits that add the proposed instructions and a pass to lower them to obtain sequential IR. Both patches have be uploaded for review [1, 2]. The latter patch is very simple and the former consists of almost only mechanical

A quick update, we have been looking through all LLVM passes to identify the impact of "IR-region annotation", and interaction issues with the rest of LoopOpt and scalarOpt, e.g. interaction with vectorization when you have schedule(simd:guided: 64). What are the common properties for optimizer to know on IR-region annotations. We have our implementation working from O0, O1, O2 to O3.

".... the problem Mehdi pointed out regarding the missed initializations of array elements, did you comment on that one yet?" What is the initializations of array elements question? I don't remember this question. Please refresh my memory. Thanks. I thought Mehdi's question is more about what are attributes needed for these IR-annotation for other LLVM pass to understand and

I assume the referring case is something like below, right? #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) { #pragma omp critical { x = x + 1; } } If that is the case, the programmer is already writing the code that is not "serial equivalent". Our representation for parallelizer is %t = @llvm.region.entry()["omp.parallel"(),

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: >> >> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, >> Bcc: >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension >> Reply-To: >>

On 03/08/2017 12:44 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > I don't know who pointed it out first but Mehdi made me aware of it at > CGO. I try to explain it shortly. > > Given the following situation (in pseudo code): > > alloc A[100]; > parallel_for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > A[i] = f(i); > > acc = 1; > for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > acc = acc *

The IR-region annotation we proposed is as below, there is no @llvm.parallel.for.iterator()..... There is no change to loop CFG. alloc A[100]; %t = call token @llvm.region.entry()["parallel.for"()] for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) { a[i] = f(i); } @llvm.region.exit(%t)() ["end.parallel.for"()] Xinmin -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Doerfert