similar to: [LLVMdev] indirect registers

I'm having problems with a TDM22B. The FXO modules work fine. Both FXS modules fail to initialized. The error messages I see when the module loads: Init Indirect Registers UNSUCCESSFULLY. Indirect Registers failed verification. I already RMA'ed a TDM22B because of this problem. Now that the replacement shows a similar issue, I want to see if anyone else can think of something to

I just installed an FXS module onto a 4 channel tdm thats about 5 years old and it wont work. Running dmesg I can see the following error: Zapata Telephony Interface Registered on major 196 Freshmaker version: 71 Freshmaker passed register test !!!!!!! LOOP_CLOSE_TRES iREG 1C = 1 should be 1000 !!!!!!! RING_TRIP_TRES iREG 1D = 8000 should be 3600 !!!!!!! COMMON_MIN_TRES iREG 1E = 0 should

Hi all, I'm implementing a virtual processor which features dynamic register indexing, and I'm struggling to make LLVM 3.0 produce good code for it. The register set is implemented as an LLVM array so it can be dynamically indexed using GEP. However, most of the time the virtual processor's registers are just statically indexed, and so I expected/hoped the code would be as

DL register is not set to drive number when detecting EDD for drive, so detection may fail. Signed-off-by: Andy Alex<andy at r-tt.com> --- diff -uprN syslinux-6.02.orig/core/fs/diskio_bios.c syslinux-6.02/core/fs/diskio_bios.c --- syslinux-6.02.orig/core/fs/diskio_bios.c 2013-10-13 21:59:03.000000000 +0400 +++ syslinux-6.02/core/fs/diskio_bios.c 2014-02-20 12:15:08.000000000 +0400 @@ -337,7

diff --git a/core/localboot.c b/core/localboot.c index 0b8769e4..30bfb272 100644 --- a/core/localboot.c +++ b/core/localboot.c @@ -63,7 +63,6 @@ __export void local_boot(int16_t ax) ireg.eax.w[0] = 0; /* Reset drive */ __intcall(0x13, &ireg, NULL); - memset(&ireg, 0, sizeof(ireg)); ireg.eax.w[0] = 0x0201; /* Read one sector */ ireg.ecx.w[0] = 0x0001; /* C/H/S = 0/0/1 (first

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm implementing a virtual processor which features dynamic register > indexing, and I'm struggling to make LLVM 3.0 produce good code for it. > The register set is implemented as an LLVM array so it can be > dynamically indexed using GEP. However, most of the time the

Hello, I have just get started using pxelinux, and encountered a problem. The document says the simple menu system supports serial console, and it works on syslinux 0.2x, but it doesn't seem to work in 0.3x and 0.4x. I confirmed that this patch fixed the bug. *** com32/lib/sys/xserial_write.c~ 2006-10-30 08:30:35.000000000 +0900 --- com32/lib/sys/xserial_write.c 2006-10-30

On 1 July 2011 13:35, Vasiliy Korchagin <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: > On 01.07.2011 12:03, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Корчагин Василий >> <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com>  wrote: >>> The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 >>> bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide

Nicolas Capens wrote: > [...] > I'm not sure if that's going to help achieve optimal code > for when the array is sometimes being dynamically indexed. > Essentially there should be some kind of store to load copy > propagation. As far as I know that's exactly what mem2reg > does, except that it only considers scalars and not elements > of arrays. > > So would

Yesterday my * server (SuSE 9.2 pro on Athlon) just stopped, no screen, no reaction to keyboard or mouse. I get all kind of messages, or just stop during restart 1. just two lines of a code (immediately after turn on the computer) 113-AM21200-100-GB GV-RX30128D F1 2. Main Processor: AMD Athlon (tm) 64 Processor 3200+ <CPUID: 0FF0 Patch ID: 0041> and BIOS line

On 01.07.2011 12:03, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Корчагин Василий > <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, LLVMdev. >> >> The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 >> bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide integers in LLVM IR. My >> question is how to deny LLVM to generate wide

On 19 June 2011 14:44, Suresh Purini <suresh.purini at gmail.com> wrote: >  I am doing few experiments to do understand optimization phase > interactions. Here is a brief description of my experiements. > > 1. I picked the list of machine independent optimizations acting on > llvm IR (those that are enabled at O3). > 2.  for each optimzation in the optimization-list >  

Hi, These patches contain support for some features that are already in Syslinux 4 but weren't working properly on the elflink branch. It's another step closer to feature parity with Syslinux 4. Having to jump through the comboot API for localboot support is less than ideal and I'll eventually fix that, probably when we move a big chunk of code from asm to C. Also, there's a

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Корчагин Василий <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, LLVMdev. > > The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 > bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide integers in LLVM IR. My > question is how to deny LLVM to generate wide integer? Which part of > LLVM should I modify? scalarrepl is the

Hi Cuong, > I am trying to avoid using stack memory (or mutable variable is the term > used in the tutorial). I am also trying to optimize the code as much as I > can before using optimizer passes such as mem2reg (to reduce the compile > time as well). I don't think there is much point in avoiding stack variables (using them makes your life much simpler -> easier to have your

Hi Chris, Thanks for your reply. You said that scalarRepl gets shy about loads and stores of the entire aggregate. Then I use a test case: ; ModuleID = 'test1.ll' define i32 @fun(i32* nocapture %X, i32 %i) nounwind uwtable readonly { %stackArray = alloca <4 x i32> %XC = bitcast i32* %X to <4 x i32>* %arrayVal = load <4 x i32>* %XC store <4 x i32>

Hi Fan, > You said that scalarRepl gets shy about loads and stores of the entire > aggregate. Then I use a test case: > > ; ModuleID = 'test1.ll' > define i32 @fun(i32* nocapture %X, i32 %i) nounwind uwtable readonly { > %stackArray = alloca <4 x i32> > %XC = bitcast i32* %X to <4 x i32>* > %arrayVal = load <4 x i32>* %XC > store

Dear all, I am doing few experiments to do understand optimization phase interactions. Here is a brief description of my experiements. 1. I picked the list of machine independent optimizations acting on llvm IR (those that are enabled at O3). 2. for each optimzation in the optimization-list a) Compiled the program using 'clang -c O0 -flto program.c' b) opt

Jack Howarth wrote: > I've had better luck compiling all of pymol 1.1r2 with > -O4 on darwin9. Everythink links and there appears to be > no regressions in the resulting code. I take it that LTO > in llvm 2.5 is still limited to dead code elimination, > correct? No. libLTO does the equivalent to opt -internalize -ipsccp -globalopt -constmerge -deadargelim -instcombine

Hello, LLVMdev. The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide integers in LLVM IR. My question is how to deny LLVM to generate wide integer? Which part of LLVM should I modify? Best regards, V. Korchagin.