Thanks erik - that works perfectly!
On 30/04/10 10:07 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote:
>> Some additional info on the hardware:
>> - CD Rom - Philips DVD+-RW DVD8801 ATA Device
>> - IDE Controller is an Intel 82801G (ICH7 family) Ultra ATA Storage
>> Controllers 27D7F, PCI Bus 0,IRQ: 0x000E (1
http://iwp9.org/iwp94e.pdf
- erik
erik quanstrom wrote:
> /sys/src/cmd/aux/vga/radeon.c uses radeon_pciids in radeon.h.
> it ignores the vids and dids in /lib/vgadb. this is probablly a
> mistake.
Agreed.
erik quanstrom wrote:
> i think it's mainly a question of getting the best graphics
> performance. but these days the 2d acc
> erik quanstrom wrote:
> > i think it's mainly a question of getting the best graphics
> > performance. but these days the 2d accelleration (especially
> > for radeon) is fairly poor.
>
> Do you happen to have any workloads where this is a problem? There is
> a lot more we can do for the radeon,
having upgraded a machine to ubunut 10.04LTS yesterday,
9vx now crashes with a segmentation violation shortly after
saying it is starting /bin/rc. has anyone else a similar
problem on that or another linux system? 9vx itself was unchanged,
but i also tried recompiling it (in case a linux include fi
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Tue Apr 27 00:31:03 EDT 2010, news...@lava.net wrote:
>> What about some mounting/binding hackery where you replace
>> /dev/cons so that the original "cpu" command works?
>
> why the resistance to il? rx is a good example of il's strengt
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > i think it's mainly a question of getting the best graphics
>> > performance. but these days the 2d accelleration (especially
>> > for radeon) is fairly poor.
>>
>> Do you happen to have any workloads where this
> Please tell me why IL is removed from the main distribution.
From the Fourth Edition Release Notes [1] :
"We are phasing out the IL protocol since it doesn't
handle long-distance connections well (and long-distance
networks don't handle it well, either)"
[1] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/
2.6.32-21-generic according to uname -a
what kernel version is it nowadays?
ron
>2.6.32-21-generic according to uname -a
or is that a combination?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> 2.6.32-21-generic according to uname -a
>
>
hmm. I'm running 9vx just fine on 2.6.33 -- a non-ubongo version. I
wonder if some ubuntu patch to the kernel has broken something?
Blast. if you do an ldd on it what libc etc. is it depending on
% ldd 9vx.Linux # old
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb772)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb7617000)
...
% ldd 9vx # new
linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00704000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00c35000)
...
where an obvious difference is tha
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> having upgraded a machine to ubunut 10.04LTS yesterday,
> 9vx now crashes with a segmentation violation shortly after
> saying it is starting /bin/rc. has anyone else a similar
> problem on that or another linux system? 9vx itself was unchan
% ldd 9vx.Linux # old
...
% ldd 9vx # new
note that `old' is run on an existing 9.04 (2.6.28-18-generic), which works,
and `new' is the 10.04 (2.6.32-21-generic), which doesn't.
>can you run the current 9vx in 9.04?
yes
Fwiw, 9vx does build and run fine on 10.04 here.
Lemme know if I can give you some relevant info which might help.
Cheers,
Mathieu
--- Begin Message ---
% ldd 9vx.Linux # old
...
% ldd 9vx # new
note that `old' is run on an existing 9.04 (2.6.28-18-generic), which works,
and `new' i
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> % ldd 9vx.Linux # old
> ...
> % ldd 9vx # new
>
> note that `old' is run on an existing 9.04 (2.6.28-18-generic), which works,
> and `new' is the 10.04 (2.6.32-21-generic), which doesn't.
>
can you run the current 9vx in 9.04?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>can you run the current 9vx in 9.04?
>
> yes
>
>
this version madness confuses me. i could not get it to run on 9.10.
9.04 was fine.
>this version madness confuses me. i could not get it to run on 9.10.
i had 9vx running fine in 9.10 on the same machine.
it was the upgrade to 10.04 LTS that messed it up today.
i wonder why the library allocation addresses are different.
The address shown by ldd can even vary from run to run, for the same file -
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2005-03/4363.html
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> >this version madness confuses me. i could not get it to run on 9.10.
>
> i had 9vx running fine
> [...] the main slowdown
> is reading from the hardware framebuffer, which plan 9 does a lot.
Where in the draw path does Plan 9 read back from the framebuffer? Why so much?
Also, there is apparently a fast way to read-back on radeon series h/w
- map some system memory on the card via the GART a
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vinu Rajashekhar wrote:
> The address shown by ldd can even vary from run to run, for the same file -
yeah it's a feechur.
But still all my libs are living in high half of 32-bit space on a
running instance.
The two LOAD segments on my 9vx are :
LOAD
On Sat May 1 18:50:38 EDT 2010, m...@endeavour.zapto.org wrote:
> > [...] the main slowdown
> > is reading from the hardware framebuffer, which plan 9 does a lot.
>
> Where in the draw path does Plan 9 read back from the framebuffer? Why so
> much?
/sys/src/9/port/devdraw.c:/^drawchar and multi
24 matches
Mail list logo
