On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 January 2017 at 23:13, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Tobias Droste <tdro...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Am Sonntag, 29. Januar 2017, 22:31:55 CET schrieb Marek Olšák: >>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Tobias Droste <tdro...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>> > Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 16:09:29 CET schrieb Marek Olšák: >>>> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >> > Can you explain why it's a desirable goal to be able to build radv >>>> >> > without >>>> >> > --enable-gallium-llvm? Perhaps it's obvious, but I'm not seeing it. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Jan 28, 2017 8:57 AM, "Tobias Droste" <tdro...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > This is a reworked series of the previous LLVM related changes to >>>> >> > configure.ac that were reverted due to breaking scons. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > This takes a different approach to the previous series and adds an >>>> >> > extra define for LLVM version checks if RADV is build. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > This allows to build RADV with "--disable-gallium-llvm". >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Patch 1, 2 and 3 are the same as in the previous series, just rebased. >>>> >> > The new stuff is in patch 3. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Tobias Droste (4): >>>> >> > configure.ac: Rename MESA_LLVM to FOUND_LLVM >>>> >> > configure.ac: Only set LLVM_LIBS if LLVM is used >>>> >> > configure.ac: Separate HAVE_LLVM defines for gallium and radv >>>> >> > configure.ac: Don't check LLVM version in gallium_require_llvm >>>> >> >>>> >> I fail to see how 2 HAVE_LLVM definitions can be a good idea. >>>> >> >>>> >> Enabling LLVM by default and allowing people to use --disable-llvm >>>> >> should be enough for everybody. >>>> > >>>> > I don't want this too and there's an obvious easier and better solution >>>> > to >>>> > this, but it was NAKed by Jose, because it changed 6 lines in draw (the >>>> > scons fix is easy): >>>> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-January/141263.html >>>> >>>> The link doesn't contain Jose's NAK. He only said that it had broken >>>> the scons build, and asked you to wait for his review next time. >>> >>> It's just the start of the thread. It's over multiple mails. >>> >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-January/141897.html >>> "2) you're keeping things nice and neat for yourselves by shoving the >>> ugly bits (like this weird USE_LLVM_FOR_DRAW/HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM) into >>> draw/gallivm/llvmpipe, which I simply cannot and will never accept." >> >> I don't really care about this stuff too much, but I think adding more >> HAVE definitions for LLVM sounds like a bad idea, and allowing >> building radv (with llvm) + softpipe (without llvm) is a use case that >> won't have any users IMO. >> > Having a generic --enable-llvm was suggested by Tobias and Ilia (et al) iirc. > Doing that leads to a small functionality change - building gallium > w/o LLVM + radv anyone ? > > Regardless we might give it a try for 17.1 and see if/for how many > people that is an issue. > For the moment we'll just resolve all the [quirky] combinations to build.
Why do you wanna build Gallium without LLVM + radv? Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
