On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Michel [ISO-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 23:04, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why the "<" business is in the source file?
>
> It's a merge conflict. (It's a good idea to check the output of cvs up
> for lines starting with a capital C fo
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 23:04, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why the "<" business is in the source file?
It's a merge conflict. (It's a good idea to check the output of cvs up
for lines starting with a capital C for conflict)
> <<< r200_span.c
>
>switch ( mode ) {
>
> Can someone explain why the "<" business is in the
> source file?
That should not be. It looks to me like a broken file.
Either patching or CVS transfer might have failed.
-Alex.
> static void r200SetBuffer( GLcontext *ctx,
>GLframebuffer *colorBuffer,
>
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Michel [ISO-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 13:11, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> >
> > I set the AGP mode to 2. Setting the mode to 2 seemed to allow X to run
> > continuously the longest without locking up. In fact I used mode 2 all
> > day and I don't believe X11 eve
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 13:11, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
>
> I set the AGP mode to 2. Setting the mode to 2 seemed to allow X to run
> continuously the longest without locking up. In fact I used mode 2 all
> day and I don't believe X11 ever locked up. I still wasn't sure whether
> the GL lib issue
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Alexander Stohr wrote:
>
> > > I tried just leaving the display running without doing anything
> > > interactive with the interface and X ran for several hours before
> > > freezing. All that was running was Xscreensaver. I
FH> I suppose I could have a hardware problem, since my PC is a couple years
FH> old now. However, I can leave the same computer just running a 2.4.x
FH> kernel for days with no problems.
HZ is 1000 by default in 2.6; the different scheduling might perhaps
cause a deadlock somewhere. Can you try
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Alexander Stohr wrote:
> > I tried just leaving the display running without doing anything
> > interactive with the interface and X ran for several hours before
> > freezing. All that was running was Xscreensaver. I then tried
> > again using
> > X normally but with a different
> I suppose I could have a hardware problem, since my PC is a
> couple years
> old now. However, I can leave the same computer just running a 2.4.x
> kernel for days with no problems. Would the redesigned kernel
> 2.6.x bang the hardware so much more; going beyond that of
> kernel 2.4.x?
It ca
maybe there is just a power save flaw,
ACPI has been significantly reworked, and I think it's on by default
now. ACPI BIOS implementations are also notoriously buggy. ACPI can also
affect your IRQ routing etc, so if you're using it you might want to try
turning it off and seeing what happens.
C
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Alexander Stohr wrote:
> > I tried just leaving the display running without doing anything
> > interactive with the interface and X ran for several hours before
> > freezing. All that was running was Xscreensaver. I then tried
> > again using
> > X normally but with a different
> I tried just leaving the display running without doing anything
> interactive with the interface and X ran for several hours before
> freezing. All that was running was Xscreensaver. I then tried
> again using
> X normally but with a different window manager (XFCE 4) and
> it worked for
> about
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 21:03, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Michel [ISO-8859-1] Dnzer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 19:27, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> > >
> > > name of display: :0.0
> > > display: :0 screen: 0
> > > direct rendering: No
> > > server glx vendor string: Brian Paul
> >
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Michel [ISO-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 19:27, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> >
> > name of display: :0.0
> > display: :0 screen: 0
> > direct rendering: No
> > server glx vendor string: Brian Paul
> > server glx version string: 1.4 Mesa 4.0.4
>
> Current XFree86 CV
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 19:27, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
>
> name of display: :0.0
> display: :0 screen: 0
> direct rendering: No
> server glx vendor string: Brian Paul
> server glx version string: 1.4 Mesa 4.0.4
Current XFree86 CVS is based on Mesa 5.0.x, it seems to be picking up
the wrong libGL?
>
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Michel [ISO-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
I upgraded my kernel to 2.6.0-test10-mm1.
I didn't not install the radeon kernel module from the XFree86 CVS source.
I manage to run X11 for about 30 minutes or so before I got the hard
lockup. I was using Netscape at the time filling in a
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 09:09, Fred Heitkamp wrote:
> Just to aggravate myself I am trying to use XFree86 with linux kernel
> 2.6.0-test9. I have a Radeon 8500 and a ASUS A7M266-D with two 1600MP
> processors. I have compiled and installed the radeon kernel modules from
> the X cvs sources into the
Just to aggravate myself I am trying to use XFree86 with linux kernel
2.6.0-test9. I have a Radeon 8500 and a ASUS A7M266-D with two 1600MP
processors. I have compiled and installed the radeon kernel modules from
the X cvs sources into the kernel modules directory. I noticed there are
two, radeo
18 matches
Mail list logo
