On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 12:09 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > > On 2018-11-01 5:03 p.m., Jan Vesely wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 18:40 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 17:41, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 17:22 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:24, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 2018-10-31 5:19 p.m., Jan Vesely wrote: > > > > > > > > This might be a stupid question; is the LLVM_CONFIG env var > > > > > > > > remembered > > > > > > > > between reconfigure (touch configure.ac; make) or do I need to > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > it explicitly every time configure is run? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the answer, but agree that would be a minimum > > > > > > > requirement > > > > > > > for this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, yet it's not really a minimum. LLVM_CONFIG has been around for > > > > > > years, it will work for any Mesa checkout since its inception. > > > > > > You can safely bisect Mesa and things will just work. > > > > > > > > > > The question is; Do I have to do "LLVM_CONFIG=..." make every time > > > > > bisect changes configure.ac? > > > > > > > > > You can do (although there's other options if this one seems weird) > > > > > > > > $ LLVM_CONFIG=... ../autogen.sh > > > > > > That does not answer my question. > > > > > > suppose the following sequence: > > > $ LLVM_CONFIG=/usr/local/llvm-4/bin/llvm-config ../mesa-src/autogen.sh > > > ... > > > llvm: yes > > > llvm-config: /usr/local/llvm-4/bin/llvm-config > > > llvm-version: 4.0.1 > > > ... > > > $ make -j128 > > > $ touch ../mesa-src/configure.ac > > > $ make -j128 > > > ... > > > llvm: yes > > > llvm-config: /usr/bin/llvm-config > > > llvm-version: 7.0.0 > > > ... > > > > > > the second reconfigure silently reverted back to system default llvm. > > > That's a loss of capabilty for me. > > > > Thanks for checking, Jan. That's a NAK from me for this patch in the > > current form. > > > > FWIW, LLVM_CONFIG is available in the generated Makefiles, so it might > > not be too hard to make this work with the environment variable. I don't > > know the preferred way to do that however. > > > Right, I misread the usecase :-( Sorry about that. > The following works like a charm: > > .../autogen.sh ac_cv_path_LLVM_CONFIG=/... > make > touch .../configure.ac > make
ouch, that's rather ugly. What is the reason to prefer env var vs. proper option (like --with-llvm-config)? meson also seems to prefer env var for some reason. I don't mind spending the time to send out the patches, but I'd like to make sure it's not a wasted effort. thanks, Jan > > > P.S. I only just now noticed the discrepancy between the commit log > > talking about "deprecation", whereas the patch actually makes the option > > ineffective. That's not what deprecation means. Also, I'm not sure how > > this patch is related to the series' general theme of bumping the > > minimum required LLVM version. Please don't bury unrelated patches in > > large series. > > > Merely following suite - see commit e2afa154e99071e8d51be88494cd1347ad113035 > The series does the following: > - bumps the version > - removes build-wise LLVM hacks - now dead > - removes old LLVM codepaths - now dea > > I could have split it in three, yet it seems like be a serious overkill. > > That said, can we hear some directions/preferences of how to move > things forward? > I'm slightly worries that we may end up in the XKCD Workflow case :-( > > Thanks > Emil
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
