In that case staying as close as possible to spir may make sense? OG.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet <hverb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >>> >> On 21.08.2014 04:29, Henri Verbeet wrote: >>> >>> For whatever it's worth, I have been avoiding radeonsi in part because >>> >>> of the LLVM dependency. Some of the other issues already mentioned >>> >>> aside, I also think it makes it just painful to do bisects over >>> >>> moderate/longer periods of time. >>> >> >>> >> More painful, sure, but not too bad IME. In particular, if you know the >>> >> regression is in Mesa, you can always use a stable release of LLVM for >>> >> the bisect. You only need to change the --with-llvm-prefix= parameter >>> >> to >>> >> Mesa's configure for that. Of course, it could still be mildly painful >>> >> if you need to go so far back that the current stable LLVM release >>> >> wasn't supported yet. But how often does that happen? Very rarely for >>> >> me. >>> >> >>> > Sure, it's not impossible, but is that really the kind of process you >>> > want users to go through when bisecting a regression? Perhaps throw in >>> > building 32-bit versions of both Mesa and LLVM on 64-bit as well if >>> > they want to run 32-bit applications. >>> > >>> >> Without LLVM, I'm not sure there would be a driver you could avoid. :) >>> >> >>> > R600g didn't really exist either, and that one seems to have worked >>> > out fine. I think in a large part because of work done by Jerome and >>> > Dave in the early days, but regardless. From what I've seen from SI, I >>> > don't think radeonsi needed to be a separate driver to start with, and >>> > while its ISA is certainly different from R600-Cayman, it doesn't >>> > particularly strike me as much harder to work with. >>> > >>> > Back to the more immediate topic though, I think think that on >>> > occasion the discussion is framed as "Is there any reason using LLVM >>> > IR wouldn't work?", while it would perhaps be more appropriate to >>> > think of as "Would using LLVM IR provide enough advantages to justify >>> > adding a LLVM dependency to core Mesa?". >>> >>> Could we use an llvm compatible IR? is also a question I'd like to see >>> answered. >> >> >> What do you mean by llvm compatible? Do you mean forking their IR inside >> mesa or just something that's easy to translate back and forth? >> > > Importing/forking the llvm IR code with a different symbol set, and > trying to not intentionally > be incompatible with their llvm. > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
