> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 22:36, Tim Rowley <timothy.o.row...@intel.com> wrote:
>> ---
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.cpp | 9 +++++--
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.h | 7 ++++-
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/blend_jit.cpp | 8 +-----
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/builder_misc.cpp | 31
>> +++++++++++++++++++---
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/builder_misc.h | 6 +++++
>> .../drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/fetch_jit.cpp | 15 ++---------
>> .../jitter/scripts/gen_llvm_ir_macros.py | 24 ++++++++++++++++-
>> .../swr/rasterizer/jitter/streamout_jit.cpp | 7 +----
>> 8 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.cpp
>> b/src/gallium/drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.cpp
>> index 4bbd9ad..6e00a70 100644
>> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.cpp
>> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/swr/rasterizer/jitter/JitManager.cpp
>> @@ -35,11 +35,13 @@
>> #include "JitManager.h"
>> #include "fetch_jit.h"
>>
>> +#pragma push_macro("DEBUG")
>> +#undef DEBUG
>> +
>> #if defined(_WIN32)
>> #include "llvm/ADT/Triple.h"
>> #endif
>> #include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
>> -#include "llvm/Support/DynamicLibrary.h"
>>
>> #include "llvm/Support/MemoryBuffer.h"
>> #include "llvm/Support/SourceMgr.h"
>> @@ -53,6 +55,8 @@
>> #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/JITEventListener.h"
>> #endif
>>
>> +#pragma pop_macro("DEBUG")
>> +
> I'm afraid that these still are still off - they should be wrapped in
> "if HAVE_LLVM >= 0x0307 ... endif". Plus the ones in JitManager.h
> really want a similar treatment.
Any reason to avoid the push/pop on older LLVM? Saves things from becoming too
messy with preprocessor directives.
> Mildly related bugs/cleanups:
> - There's a few cases of _DEBUG which should (?) be replaced with ifndef
> NDEBUG
Ok, I can address this in another patch.
> - swr uses both mesa and LLVM provided version macros. Please stick to one.
> If the latter is reliable (available all the way to min. supported
> LLVM version) and can be used in both C and C++ sources I'm inclined
> to just use it everywhere in mesa and drop out local macros…
Are you referring to the HAVE_LLVM macro? I can remove the conditional
definition of this from swr (since Mesa provides the definition).
-Tim
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
