+++ programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/shared/drm/kernel/radeon.h 13 Jul 2002 16:30:17 -
-47,11 +47,11
#define DRIVER_NAME radeon
#define DRIVER_DESC ATI Radeon
-#define DRIVER_DATE 20020611
+#define DRIVER_DATE 20020713
#define DRIVER_MAJOR 1
#define DRIVER_MINOR 3
-#define
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)
hackie@misato:~/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel
{513}$ make -f Makefile.linux radeon.o
cc -O2 -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align
On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 11:56, Slava Polyakov wrote:
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)
hackie@misato:~/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel
{513}$ make -f Makefile.linux radeon.o
cc -O2
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:26:07PM -0600, Eric Anholt wrote:
Okay, this was my fault, I changed __FUNCTION__ to __func__ because gcc3
complains about __FUNCTION__ being deprecated and I was told __func__
was the portable alternative. Maybe we need a #define __func__
__FUNCTION__ for some
Hi,
I tried another game: Torcs. Occasionally (about once in 1 or 2 hours)
it crashes with Error flushing vertex buffer: return = -11. This is
the corresponding kernel log:
Jul 13 23:04:30 viking kernel: [drm:mach64_freelist_get] *ERROR* Empty ring with
non-idle engine!
Jul 13 23:04:30 viking
On July 13, 2002 04:04 pm, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:26:07PM -0600, Eric Anholt wrote:
Okay, this was my fault, I changed __FUNCTION__ to __func__ because gcc3
complains about __FUNCTION__ being deprecated and I was told __func__
was the portable alternative. Maybe
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I tried another game: Torcs. Occasionally (about once in 1 or 2 hours)
it crashes with Error flushing vertex buffer: return = -11. This is
the corresponding kernel log:
Jul 13 23:04:30 viking kernel:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, José Fonseca wrote:
But the fact remains that the reads from GUI_STAT aren't reliable. I
wonder if the chip creats some transient values...
I wonder if always reading FIFO_STAT before GUI_STAT would make a
difference. The register reference says that the GUI_ACTIVE bit
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Leif Delgass wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, José Fonseca wrote:
But the fact remains that the reads from GUI_STAT aren't reliable. I
wonder if the chip creats some transient values...
I wonder if always reading FIFO_STAT before GUI_STAT would make a
difference. The
