On 1 February 2017 at 17:32, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > I was wondering about the same thing.
Then again it's allowed atm, plus is/was working like a charm (with the bug addressed). We can change/fix that for 17.1.x, but I'd keep expectations consistent within the feature freeze. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
