similar to: xen 3.2

I am currently running Centos 5.2 with 2.6.18-92.1.13.el5xen with 2 domu's One another Centos 5.2 and another Windows XP. The Centos DomU works fine and I never have any problems however my XP DomU crashes every so often with the bluescreen DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL then under the technical information tcpip.sys addres xxxxxx base at xxxxx datetime Xxxxxxxxx Is there a driver

Hi I had observed the following problem in R (also C, Matlab, and Python). sprintf('%1.2g\n', 3.15) give 3.1 instead of 3.2 whereas an input of 3.75 gives 3.8. Java's System.out.printf is ok though. > round(3.75,1) [1] 3.8 > round(3.15,1) [1] 3.1 Similar outcome with sprintf in R. However, the right answer should be 3.2 Regards Teckpor [[alternative HTML version

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> > wrote: > > > Hi Pawel, > > > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > > still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the > > release tarball is

On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > > Hi Pawel, > > > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > >

On Jan 11, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Brooks Davis <brooks at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:02:22AM -0500, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> That said, I think MSVC 2010 is a reasonable target. Just MHO, but I think it is far too early to drop support for MSVC 2010. > It's a bit more complex for FreeBSD (and probably the others) due to > assumptions in our build

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > >

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26

On 12/4/2012 10:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > What is the procedure for updating the release notes? I've been committing > changes to the trunk version, should I be editing them elsewhere? Or will > the trunk version be merged in? The exact procedure is not spelled out but I think the easiest would be to merge relevant "ReleaseNotes.html" changes from the trunk,

On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer >>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 11.01.2013, at

On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at

Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,

Alright, can you please pull in r169280? On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 12/4/2012 10:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > What is the procedure for updating the release notes? I've been > committing > > changes to the trunk version, should I be editing them elsewhere? Or > will > > the trunk version be

Hi Justin, gentlemen, I'm afraid I have to escalate this issue at this point. Since it was discussed for the first time last summer, it was sufficient for us for a while to have lowering of math calls into intrinsics disabled at DragonEgg level, and link them against CUDA math functions at LLVM IR level. Now I can say: this is not sufficient any longer, and we need NVPTX backend to deal with

Brooks, > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>

Hello, Recent code owner activities have led to what I would call loss of referential integrity in the CODE_OWNERS.TXT file. Changes are fine but the information in the CODE_OWNERS.TXT does not allow to positively identify code owner of the particular file or patch. The problem stems from the usage of the "description (D)" field which is overloaded with meaning. Most people put

Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to

Hi Pawel, PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the release tarball is a good idea? Also could you remove it from the trunk? Thanks. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage:

On 1/11/2013 3:59 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > Brooks, > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer