On 19 April 2016 at 20:59, Tom Stellard <t...@stellard.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:39:13PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> Hi Chuck, >> >> Thanks for chipping in. >> >> On 19 April 2016 at 15:47, Chuck Atkins <chuck.atk...@kitware.com> wrote: >> > This still doesn't quite give what you want. One can also have an llvm >> > with >> > component shared libs. So there's three different options for llvm library >> > configurations: a single shared lib, component shared libs, or component >> > static libs. >> From the three - only single shared lib and component static libs are >> supported. >> >> Personally I'm leaning that we ought to go with the latter only... Esp >> considering the problems that people tend to have with mesa + steam, >> every so often. >> >> IIRC all the issues that we had with static llvm have been resolved. >> Plus we have great people like Kai who promptly send patches when >> things break (which hasn't happen in a long time) >> >> Tom, what is your view on the topic - are you ok with us switching >> back to static one and/or nuking the shared one ? Iirc Jose was clear >> that in his view one should just static link LLVM. I believe that's >> still the case, right Jose ? >> > > The shared option is useful for development, because then you don't > need to rebuild mesa every time you make an LLVM change, so I don't want > to remove it. > > I don't really have a strong opinion of what should be default. Static > libraries have the disadvantage of requiring you to explicitly list the > libraries you need, so if a library changes names or a new dependency is > added, the build will break. > It does sound a bit annoying, but surely we can sort these out. There are plenty people using/testing mesa+llvm trunk, so we're bound to get reports and/or patches as things go south.
> Static libraries builds also take up a huge amount of disk/memory since > each pipe driver and state tracker has their own copy of LLVM linked in. > Indeed, but we're better than before - we used to have multiple separate driver (per state-tracker) which were (iirc) 70%+ identical. Now we have only one ;-) I have some work laying around to fold the radeon pipe-drivers into one. There was also another to make things completely modular (i.e. toggle between static and dynamic pipe-driver via a configure tweak). Guess I need to revisit that one and finish it (convert Clover). This way you'll get small state tracker libraries and just one pipe-driver shared by all. So in general any issues that we may have with static LLVM are not impossible to resolve. Although based on your and Michel's request I won't attempt removing shared LLVM support. Just going to toggle it back to disabled, barring any objections of course. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
