On 14 February 2013 11:42, Christian König <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote:
> nice work, I think you've made quite a progress here, but on the other hand
> it should be clear that the LLVM backend is the future and we should
> concentrate on that.
>
I'm not sure that's really true. My impression is that LLVM has a
number of problems that make it annoying to work with, and in the end
it could very well turn out that the better approach would have been
to just improve the existing code. Of course I'm not really a fan of
using C++ (and operator overloading in particular) here either, but I
think it would be interesting to see how far this branch can go, and
how it compares to the LLVM backend in the end.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
