On 19 May 2017 at 17:46, Rowley, Timothy O <timothy.o.row...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On May 19, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The original idea by Tim sounds OK imho and I'm actually giving it a try. > Are you referring to using a llvm-3.9 generated version? Yes. Unless I've completely misinterpret and you had something else in mind. > Did you envision > me checking that in a gen_builder.h file, Not sure where/how I hinted that - there should be no need for that. > or removing the logic that omitted > it from the tarball and somehow enforcing that a packaging build needs > llvm-3.9? > This one here - patch is on the list. It should work until we can think of a better solution. > > FWIW the diff between 3.9 and 4.0 seems quite trivial - see below. > > It should be possible to update the python scripts to handle most/all of > > those. > > Perhaps we can have this as a long term solution? > > > At this point llvm seems to be stable in just having intrinsics being added; > for a while there was some churn. Unless/until the swr driver/rasterizer > starts to take advantage of new llvm intrinsics, we should be fine using the > 3.9 version. > What I was thinking is: - Parse through for required intrinsics/other and do not generate any that are unused. Perhaps it's too much hassle or even not possible? In that case, forget I even mentioned it. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
