From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 23 12:42:38 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id MAA12098 for current-outgoing; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:42:38 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA12092; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:42:30 -0800 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA13154; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:41:22 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA00214; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:41:22 -0800 Message-Id: <199502232041.MAA00214@corbin.Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Jeff Hoffman , current@FreeBSD.org, jdc@day.xinside.com Subject: Re: UPDATE: Imagine128 & AccelX & 950210-SNAP In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Feb 95 12:24:14 PST." <11566.793571054@freefall.cdrom.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:41:20 -0800 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Ok, for those of you who have been keeping up, I tried to re-install 2.0 >> and ended up back with 950210-SNAP because my floppy didn't work with >> 2.0 This time, I ftp'ed the the 950210-SNAP from scratch, and did not >> use one single non-950210-SNAP file (except my X server). > >[FYI - either -hackers OR -current, but never both. I have adjusted > the CC line. Thank you] > >> I run Xsetup again, choose Number9 I128 w/4MB, same resolution, same >> color depth (16 colors). I load up X, and things are no longer OK. >> Before I go into depth with the problems, let me say that I ran this >> server under 2.0 for a while (about a month) with 0 problems. I have not >> done one thing to my machine since then. It is _EXACTLY_ the same as it >> was then. _Something_ that was changed between 2.0 and 950210-SNAP is >> causing this problem, either directly or indirectly. I will let the >> XInside people know tomorrow, as well. > >I'm sorry, but this is just frankly bizarre. I can't think of >anything except perhaps the mmap() semantics changing (David?) that >would lead to semantics like you're describing. The X server should Ummm, nothing that I know of would affect this. There were a few minor bogons fixed in post 0210-SNAP, but these have been around forever. My #9GXE/Pro is working just fine. I know through explict checking that it is mmaping using /dev/mem and is mapping the a0000-ffffff range (why the whole thing I don't know). It is not doing linear mapping on my machine with the version of the XInside server that I'm using. Perhaps I need to tweak something somewhere to get it to do that, and perhaps this is why I don't see the problem? ...I dunno, but it's working fine with the stock configuration. Note: Jeremy Chatfield isn't on -current, so if you wish for him to see this discourse he needs to be CC'd (which I just did). -DG