similar to: pop3 not working properly in 1.0.r19

Author: tha-guest Date: 2006-02-18 16:38:52 +0000 (Sat, 18 Feb 2006) New Revision: 19 Modified: trunk/debian/control trunk/debian/patches/00list trunk/debian/rules trunk/debian/xen-hypervisor-pae.install trunk/debian/xen-hypervisor.install Log: - changed debian/rules to build a pae hypervisor on i386 (has to be done after the "make dist" for the non-pae stuff) - changed

Sorry if this is a duplicate: I tried to send it last night and it didn't go through. I'm trimming some text to see if it helps. I have a simple program that fails on the Microblaze: int main() { unsigned long long x, y; x = 100; y = 0x8000000000000000ULL; return !(x > y); } As you can see, the test case compares two unsigned long long values. To try to track

Jeff thanks for those suggestions, that's exactly what i would like to do, however i dont know how to do it with my current knowledge :\ As far as i understand patterns only take one instruction as an input (while the pattern you wrote before takes two) and also, i dont know how to handle register copying (COPY) in the .td file because they're handled in a different way to the rest of

Hi Borja, > Without doing what i mentioned and letting LLVM expand all operations wider > than 8 bits as you asked, the code produced is excellent supposing that many > of the moves there should be 16 bit moves reducing code size and right > register allocation, also something important for me is that the code is > better than gcc's. When i say right reg allocation it doesnt

The parts of klibc specific to the parisc architecture. Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> --- commit 078d6614054391efe17093f8d70340e2c0644ffb tree 63a4bf899e5ca2ef3c0a8e9ef3098273012f7a33 parent ebd2860ad3dc19cb11fd5b9cc235cab54e9165f4 author H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:58:36 -0700 committer H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> Sun, 25 Jun

Hello Lang, thanks for the suggestion :) it's very interesting. I'll take a read to the email you've pointed out there to understand how it works. Btw, does this mean that only your allocator is able to handle or support this type of constraint? As a follow up to my previous email, the following code is a real example of what i was explaining, Lang this example is exactly why i need

Implement "pid_t vfork(void)" for parisc. Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle at parisc-linux.org> --- Ugh. vfork() me harder. Kbuild | 2 +- vfork.S | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild b/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild index d57a873..57ca5c2 100644 --- a/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild

Hi. The patch I send before was too large so that it was dropped from the maling list. I'm sending again with smaller size. This patch set is the xen paravirtualization of hand written assenbly code. And I expect that much clean up is necessary before merge. We really need the feed back before starting actual clean up as Eddie already said before. Eddie discussed how to clean up and suggested

Hi. The patch I send before was too large so that it was dropped from the maling list. I'm sending again with smaller size. This patch set is the xen paravirtualization of hand written assenbly code. And I expect that much clean up is necessary before merge. We really need the feed back before starting actual clean up as Eddie already said before. Eddie discussed how to clean up and suggested

On Nov 27, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Some background first: this issue is for a backend for an 8bit microcontroller with only 8bit regs, however it has a few 16bit instructions that only work with fixed register pairs, so it doesnt allow all combinations of regs. This introduces some problems because if data wider than 8bits is expanded into 8bit operations the 16bit instructions

Hello, some months ago i wrote to the mailing list asking some questions about register pairing, i've been experimenting several things with the help i got back then. Some background first: this issue is for a backend for an 8bit microcontroller with only 8bit regs, however it has a few 16bit instructions that only work with fixed register pairs, so it doesnt allow all combinations of regs.

Hi. I rewrote the patch according to the comments. I adopted generating in-place code because it looks the quickest way. The point Eddie wanted to discuss is how to generate code and its ABI. i.e. in-place generating v.s. direct jump v.s. indirect function call Indirect function call doesn't make sense because ivt.S is compiled multi times. And it is up to pv instances to choose in-place

Hi. I rewrote the patch according to the comments. I adopted generating in-place code because it looks the quickest way. The point Eddie wanted to discuss is how to generate code and its ABI. i.e. in-place generating v.s. direct jump v.s. indirect function call Indirect function call doesn't make sense because ivt.S is compiled multi times. And it is up to pv instances to choose in-place

The Sparc, Microblaze, and Mips code generators implement branch delay slots. They all seem to exhibit the same bug, which is not surprising since the code is very similar. If I compile code with this snippit: while (n--) *s++ = (char) c; I get this (for the Microblaze): swi r19, r1, 0 add r3, r0, r0 cmp r3, r3, r7 beqid r3,

Reimplement __common_syscall in assembler. The 32-bit ABI says that the fifth and sixth arguments to the function are passed on the stack, but our syscall ABI says they are passed in %arg4 and %arg5 like the 64-bit ABI. Also, tried to optimize the code slightly by making use of the cmpb delay slot to load the errno return of -1. Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle@parisc-linux.org> diff

I'm trying to use Asterisk as a voice mail system and all is going well except for one issue. When the outside caller drops the connection Asterisk doesn't sense it. It keeps the line open for about 2 minutes before dropping it. The FXO is attached to a key system (hybrid PBX). There was a home-type digital answering machine previously on the same extension and it was able to sense

I'm a new LLVM developer contributing patches for the AVR platform and I'm trying to understand which parts of the code base are malfunctioning in my case. This LLVM IR... define hidden i32 @setServoAngle3(i32) local_unnamed_addr { entry: %1 = call i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32 %0, i32 119) ret i32 %1 } declare i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32, i32) Is being lowered to this assembly

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Please review and comments. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation