Am 27.01.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 26 January 2017 at 20:17, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Am 26.01.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Emil Velikov:
>>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
>>>
>>> Currently we can build draw without LLVM thus honouring SOFTPIPE_USE_LLVM
>>> is misleading even if most of the code nicely falls-back to no-op in the
>>> lack of LLVM.
>>>
>>> That does not seem to be the case in softpipe_draw_vbo() where extra
>>> prepare {prepare,cleanup}_{vertex,geometry}_sampling is present.
>>>
>>> Haven't checked how much overhead the causes, but omitting it is the
>>> correct thing to do, afaict.
>>>
>>> Note: the topic of "is it a smart idea to have softpipe build with
>>> LLVM-less draw" is to be checked another day.
>> This might not make much sense for other drivers, but for softpipe it
>> probably really does - it also defaults to non-llvm draw.
>> You are right though that we shouldn't set use_llvm if we didn't build
>> with llvm.
>>
>> As for appending LLVM to the name, this sounds about right to me. Albeit
>> what we probably really want to know is if draw is actually using llvm,
>> not just if it was built with it (in particular with softpipe which
>> defaults to non-llvm). But no big deal...
>>
> Agreed. I'm drawing a blank (pun intended) about good, non-ambiguous,
> yet brief, wording to use.
> Any suggestions ?
Not really. Maybe appending something like "(llvm draw)". I guess it
doesn't exactly fit "brief".Roland > >> For the series: >> Reviewed-by: Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> >> > Thank you > Emil > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
