similar to: [Bug 94728] New: Nouveau doesn't work with Nvidia GTX 960

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111242 Bug ID: 111242 Summary: Device driver tries to sync DMA memory it has not allocated Product: Mesa Version: 19.1 Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

On 03/28/2016 12:37 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > It changes all the time. Here’s a trivial example, assume no inlining > and no AA other than the one in question: > > std::vector<int> V1 = { 1, 2, 3 }; > std::vector<int> V2 = { 4, 5, 6 }; > > V1.pop_back(); // Mutates *this > > auto length = V1.size(); > > V2.pop_back(); //

I'm new to using LLVM and I've started work on a compiler for a language that can interface with C. One thing that caught me off guard was returning a struct from a function by value. It seems that when calling a C function I need to emit llvm ir that, in the caller, emits an alloca for the returned structure, and the C function signature should return void and take a first argument with

Hola Chandler, On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev < openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It seems like if the OpenMP folks want to add a liboffload plugin to > StreamExecutor, that would be an awesome additional platform, but I don't > see why we need to force the coupling here. > > Let me give you a reason: while user-facing sides of

My new GTX 960 (GM206, I think) says: [ 10.329351] nouveau ![ DEVICE][0000:09:00.0] unknown Maxwell chipset [ 10.329355] nouveau E[ DEVICE][0000:09:00.0] unknown chipset, 0x126010a1 [ 10.329356] nouveau E[ DRM] failed to create 0x00000080, -22 [ 10.330129] nouveau: probe of 0000:09:00.0 failed with error -22 Hacking up nouveau so that it treats it like a GM204 doesn't work. Are

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jia Chen via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:10:12 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Existing studies on the benefits of pointer > analysis > On 03/28/2016 12:37

On 27 March 2016 at 21:48, Michael Nicolella via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can someone help me understand why this detail needs to be understood by the frontend, Many of the backends can do automatic demotion to sret, but the front-end still needs to be aware of the issues (particularly around unions, since whether demotion is necessary can depend on more than just

Hi Jason, This is probably because I'm not aware of the details, but it was claimed in this thread that liboffload can target Xeon Phi and Nvidia GPUs. Adding a new library that the compiler has to be aware of has to bring significant benefit. So it is not clear to me yet why the compiler should target two different runtime libraries that seems to have large chunk of overlapping

I have continous oom&panic situation unresolved. I am not sure system fills up all the ram (36GB). Why this system triggered this oom situation? Is it about some other memory? highmem? lowmem? stack size? Best Regards, Kernel 3.10.24 Dec 27 09:19:05 2013 kernel: : [277622.359064] squid invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x42d0, order=3, oom_score_adj=0 Dec 27 09:19:05 2013 kernel: :

Good day, earlier this month I wrote you this email: Good evening, my name is Miroslav Hnčíř and I am from Czech Republic. I would like to participate in Google Summer of Code and help the LLVM project. I also would like to continue work on LLVM after GSoC, regardless of the outcome. I am really interested in compilers and especially in LLVM (backends interest me more), but my problem is that I do

I did a more thorough read through liboffload and wrote up a more detailed doc describing how StreamExecutor platforms relate to libomptarget RTL interfaces. The doc also describes why the lack of support for streams in libomptarget makes it impossible to implement some of the most important StreamExecutor platforms in terms of libomptarget (

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:04 PM, Jia Chen <jchen at cs.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On 03/25/2016 08:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> I’m still a big fan of context sensitive, flow insensitive, unification based models. > > Interestingly I find the unification approach quite unsatisfactory sometime. What happens there is pointers with the same "depth" are too often

FYI - There is currently an architectural issue which prevents the SCC pass manager (which runs the inliner) from relying on Function or Loop analysis passes. This is the primary motivation of the pass manager rewrite that Chandler Carruth has been working on for the last two years. He's getting relatively close to that project being done, but until then you are going to be effectively

Le 12/03/2016 à 14:15, Johan Engelen a écrit : > > > > I'm not sure how clean / dirty of a solution you'd be okay with, but > > I'd just point out that CMake developers provide working binary > > tarballs for Linux with every release at > https://cmake.org/download/ . > > So, if you are not a purist and/or need the CMake backport for

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91526 Bug ID: 91526 Summary: World of Warcraft (on Wine) has UI corruption with nouveau Product: Mesa Version: git Hardware: Other OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

On 03/25/2016 08:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I’m still a big fan of context sensitive, flow insensitive, > unification based models. Interestingly I find the unification approach quite unsatisfactory sometime. What happens there is pointers with the same "depth" are too often clobbered together unless they are really unrelated to each other. > Contrary to your claim,

Hi,It seems inliner does not take into account if a call is inside a loop. I'm trying to figure out if loop-info can be made available to the inliner. When I try to add LoopInfoWrapperPass to Inliner.cpp, diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cppindex 568707d..cb51ea8 100644--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp+++

Hi Carlo, Thanks for helping to clarify this point about libomptarget vs liboffload, I have been getting confused about it myself. I think the open question concerns libomptarget not liboffload (others can correct me if I have misunderstood). My analysis from looking through the code was that libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I just wanted to consider how

OK. I will do some experiments with (1) on Power PC. Will update this email chain about the results. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160323/f05c1bad/attachment.html>

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=960 Summary: iptables-save does not output the state of all tables Product: iptables Version: 1.4.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: iptables-save AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at