On 21/04/16 08:37, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 20.04.2016 22:10, Jose Fonseca wrote:
On 19/04/16 19:39, Emil Velikov wrote:
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 ?
Yes, I think that distros should statically link LLVM. Otherwise Mesa's
LLVM can clash with other projects LLVM, which can and often do require
a different LLVM version. And there's *lots* of projects out there that
use LLVM and OpenGL, particularly languages w/ JIT compilation.
FWIW, that sort of thing can work with shared LLVM with current versions
of LLVM which use versioned symbols. I tested the gambas OpenGL support
with gambas and radeonsi linked against different versions of LLVM a
while ago, worked fine. (I also confirmed that it breaks with older
versions of LLVM which didn't use versioned symbols)
That sounds promising.
Jose
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
