similar to: [Bug 102631] New: Multiple nouveau stacks on kernel log when connecting a external monitor

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111098 Bug ID: 111098 Summary: xf16-video-nouveau 1.0.16-1 arch fails to resume from blank Product: Mesa Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

Hi, this is my first help request so please bear with me. I've been running some normality tests using the nortest package. For some of my datasets the Cramer-von Mises normality test generates an extremely high probability (e.g., 1.637e+31) and indicates normality when the other tests do not. Is there something I'm misunderstanding or potentially a bug in the code? Below are the

I believe there to be a bug in the cvm.test module of the nortest package authored by Juergen Gross. I do not know how to contact the author directly. I've been running some normality tests using the nortest package. For some of my datasets the Cramer-von Mises normality test generates an extremely high probability (e.g., 1.637e+31) and indicates normality when the other tests do

Following these instructions to install steam[1], I try to install gecko engine by running the command $wine iexplore wine iexplore http://winehq.org But it crashes, leaving that error message I'm using wune 0.9.36 on Ubuntu 6.10 [1] http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=1554 ========================================== fixme:shdocvw:IEWinMain "http://winehq.org" 1

Behaviour: looks like any applications that try to use mshtml(most perfect dark and built-in iexplore) crash: Steps to reproduce > rm -rf ~/.wine > export LANG=ja_JP.utf-8 > wine --version wine-1.1.43 > wine iexplore wine: created the configuration directory '/devel/.wine' fixme:msvcrt:_setmbcp trail bytes data not available for DBCS codepage 0 - assuming all bytes

just downloaded klibc 0.72 and took a look. first thing i found was that the URL for latest version is out of date: klibc is archived at: ftp://ftp.zytor.com/pub/linux/libs/klibc/ the `libs/' is superfluous. more importantly, this piece of code in klibc/arch/README is wrong: #if STACK_GROWS_UP argc = (int)*argptr--; argv = (char **)argptr; envp = argv-(argc+1); #else argc

I see that you'll have a Stack Frame object with a Call Stack being accessible from a RuntimeInfo object. I'm having trouble finding out how to access this RuntimeInfo object or the Call Stack. What is the easiest way to do this? Thanks, Ben Mayne x245 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Kalle Raiskila wrote: > attached is a second try for the bigstack patch for SPU, with testcase. It is essentially the patch committed as 97091, and reverted as 97099, but with the following additions: > -in vararg handling, registers are marked to be live, to not confuse the register scavenger Looks good. You can try running with -verify-machineinstrs to detect

Hi all, I'm developing a backend for a custom architecture. The target architecture has different memory for different data types(vector and scalar). So is it possible to maintain two different stacks, one for vector and the other for scalar? ---- Regards, Dongrui She -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi all! Attached a three part series which implements the very first bits of my GSoC proposal (full proposal is here http://pastebin.com/e9JMZNCE), for some preliminary review. -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Adds-relevant-command-line-options.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 2021 bytes Desc: not

Hi All, Could someone suggest a way to make (the standard) spiller reuse stack slots associated with function arguments? I was not able to convince it that argument slots can be used as spill ones already keeping the value for certain virtual registers thus getting a bit of useless moves between stack and registers. Thanks in advance, BR m

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be > freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail > call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- > still useful, but not live or die. We discussed this on IRC a while ago. IMHO it is

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: >> Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be >> freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail >> call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- >> still useful, but not

Hi Sanjoy, > I've been working on implementing support for segmented stacks in LLVM > (towards GSoC '11). Currently I'm working on adding intrinsics for > coroutines. The problem is this: > > Till now I had been depending on libgcc for runtime support (and was > being 100% libgcc compatible in the process). However, since all the > stack allocation routines in

On 08/10/2011 11:03 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > > Attached my pre-midterm GSoC work for segmented stacks for review (with > the required fixes). Nice work! + extern bool EnableSegmentedStacks; Can you add a comment like the other declarations? I think the patch looks good. There are possible improvements, but the patch is already in an state where it can be tested and extended

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:06:52AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > thanks for working on this! As far as I know, split stacks are the only thing > special to GCC Go, otherwise the generic GCC infrastructure was enough. Not true. At least on x86_64, Go uses a different calling convention. Joerg

> thanks for working on this! As far as I know, split stacks are the only thing > special to GCC Go, otherwise the generic GCC infrastructure was enough. If that > is true then you shouldn't need to do more than what you described above, except > for poking at things until they work of course! The usual source of trouble is > when front-ends trying to write things directly to

As far as I can see (after hand-tweaking the assembly generated for a simple example), there is no problem with the calling convention. Also, go_write_export_data only seems to generate to some sort of debug information (which does not look like DWARF). However, there seems to be some problem with how LLVM handles trampolines -- I'm currently trying find out what exactly the problem is. --

On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > >> diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..5ffb8f2 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp >> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ >> +//===-- StackSegmenter.h - Prolog/Epilog code insertion -------*- C++ -* --===//

Hi! > According to the patch you send, the pass is not doing anything: > > +bool StackSegmenter::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) { > + return false; > +} > + It is, in the next patch. diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp index 5ffb8f2..cc2ca87 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp