Hey Emil, did you have to time look at this? What should we do?
I would argue to first merge what I have now and if you really want to disallow llvm-less gallium with llvm-full radv we could do this later and revert the changes of patch 4. Personally I think it's ok how it is now. Gallium with its optional dependency is a special case in mesa and that's why it is handled in special way (patch 4). All other users have a hard requirement. Tobias Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016, 23:02:36 CET schrieb Tobias Droste: > Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016, 17:14:12 CET schrieb Emil Velikov: > > On 8 December 2016 at 02:03, Tobias Droste <tdro...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Gallium code used HAVE_LLVM to check if it needs to compile code for > > > LLVM in header and source files. > > > > > > With the new logic HAVE_LLVM is always set. Use extra define to figure > > > out if LLVM is used. > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99010 > > > > If you agree with the comment in 2/6 we can drop this patch. Unless > > I'm missing something ? > > > > Emil > > This patch is acutally the most important one. Without this patch you get > the following error with softpipe: > libGL: dlopen lib/gallium/swrast_dri.so failed (lib/gallium/swrast_dri.so: > undefined symbol: draw_gs_llvm_destroy_variant) > > So patch 4 is needed and requires patch 2. > > Tobias > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
