<GitHub114>
artiq/master cda9719 Sebastien Bourdeauducq: gui: update version number in background
<GitHub13>
[artiq] whitequark commented on issue #560: > I would do it the other way, in order to stay closer to Python semantics. Support optimized iteration on homogeneous tuples without unrolling, introduce a HeterogeneousCollection (or similarly named) type for the more special case of iterating (with unrolling) on disparate objects.... https://github.com/m-labs/artiq/issues/560#issuecomment-333439798
<sb0>
bb-m-labs: force build --props=package=artiq-kc705-nist_qc2 --branch=release-2 artiq-board
<bb-m-labs>
The build has been queued, I'll give a shout when it starts
<sb0>
bb-m-labs: force build --props=package=artiq-pipistrello-nist_qc1 --branch=release-2 artiq-board
<bb-m-labs>
The build has been queued, I'll give a shout when it starts
<GitHub157>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: Do you think you could finish the renaming in this commit? I'd like to keep history bisectable, and generally clean. https://git.io/vdnQf
<GitHub46>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: I can imagine that a network card could handle ipv4 checksum but not ipv6, so perhaps split these off into udpv4 and tcpv4? https://git.io/vdnQe
<GitHub34>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: `ChecksumCapabilities`, for consistence. https://git.io/vdnQv
<GitHub25>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: Do you think you could fold this commit into previous ones? Same reasoning as before. https://git.io/vdnQU
<GitHub122>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: I think it's worth passing a `&ChecksumCapabilities` around because all of the parse/emit methods already know what kind of packet are they working with, not individual `Checksum` fields, since then the resulting code is easier to read. `header.emit(&mut ip_packet, checksum_caps)` plus `if checksum_caps.ipv4.tx() { ... }` vs `header.emit(&mut ip_packet, emit_checksum)` plus `emit_che
<GitHub78>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 927158d: What's the rationale here? https://git.io/vdnQT
bb-m-labs has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
sb0 has joined #m-labs
<sb0>
hmm the buildbot computer crashed
<GitHub85>
[smoltcp] steffengy commented on pull request #43 927158d: Ensuring the checksum field is surely zeroed in the resulting packet.... https://git.io/vdcvG
sb0 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
rohitksingh has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rohitksingh has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rohitksingh has joined #m-labs
bb-m-labs has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rohitksingh has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rohitksingh has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<_florent_>
rjo: i'm testing sayma flash as you wanted
<_florent_>
rjo: please ping me when you are there so that we look at that together
<rjo>
_florent_: ping.
<rjo>
_florent_: i had the impression that sayma (or the ftdi chip, or the jtag router, or the mmc) sometimes gets into a weird state. could you try power cycling?
<rjo>
and can you give me a lsusb?
<_florent_>
rjo: i'm back, i do that
<_florent_>
rjo: indeed it's now different
<_florent_>
it's also different with or without sayma rtm, whithout rtm i get:
<GitHub150>
[smoltcp] steffengy commented on issue #43: @whitequark ... https://git.io/vdcmQ
<rjo>
_florent_: forgot one change: make that "pld load 1 bscan_spi_xcku040-sayma.bit"
<GitHub32>
[smoltcp] jordens commented on issue #43: Out of curiosity: Does someone have data on how much this speeds things up? How much time is spent on checksums in smoltcp (excluding the higher non-smoltcp protocol layers)? https://git.io/vdc3E
<GitHub130>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 eae3799: `checksum_caps` would be more clear. I actually got confused on the type of this variable while reviewing. https://git.io/vdcjf
<GitHub58>
[smoltcp] steffengy commented on issue #43: @whitequark ... https://git.io/vdCvU
<GitHub90>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 29b1e39: Rebase issue? https://git.io/vdCIz
<GitHub78>
[smoltcp] whitequark commented on pull request #43 9ec67cf: Shouldn't we verify checksum in this method? Looks like I forgot to implement it. https://git.io/vdCIN
<GitHub82>
[smoltcp] steffengy commented on pull request #43 9ec67cf: Yeah I'm not sure what the story is around there, that's what I meant with:... https://git.io/vdCLG
<GitHub195>
[smoltcp] steffengy commented on issue #43: @whitequark And another round, thanks for the patience! https://git.io/vdCLp