On 07.02.2017 23:54, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2017 8:54:40 PM PST Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ern...@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI glmark2 segfaults with mesa_glthread=true. Expected that some programs
will segfault?
Yes, even segfaults are expected with mesa_glthread=true.
Marek
Would it make sense to be crash-free or even regression-free on at
least Piglit, before merging? (Or are we there already?)
It's not necessary. glthread is disabled by default. Nobody has tested
piglit with glthread. That will follow after it's been merged, or
never if it's never merged.
I don't understand why you're so concerned about merging untested
code. That violates some pretty fundamental development practices of
the project.
It's exactly unfinished projects like this that cause problems and
inevitably have to be deleted later (ilo, openvg, d3d1x, etc). I don't
think it's a burden to develop something out of the master branch
until it's somewhat useful.
The code is already somewhat useful. Actually, make that _very_ useful
(big performance improvement) for _some_ cases.
I suspect most of the people in this discussion haven't really looked at
the code in detail (myself included). We should probably do some of that
before it is merged, since the code isn't just a new driver that is
isolated in its own directory. So I agree with Emil that it makes sense
to let the patches go over the mailing list once.
However, it's fine to merge this without passing piglit.
Cheers,
Nicolai
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
