On 25/03/15 19:58, Jose Fonseca wrote: > On 25/03/15 19:35, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 25/03/15 15:21, Jose Fonseca wrote: >>> On 25/03/15 14:53, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>> On 24 March 2015 at 21:16, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: >>>>> There doesn't seem much interest on osmesa on Windows, particularly >>>>> classic osmesa. >>>>> >>>>> If there is indeed interest in osmesa on Windows, we should instead >>>>> integrate src/gallium/targets/osmesa into SCons. >>>> Afaict the Octave people still use it. There was a guy in #dri-devel >>>> who was having issues with the Windows build not too long ago [1] >>>> >>>> Iirc the VTK folk are were using osmesa, although I'm not sure if (how >>>> much) Windows support is a thing for them. Hence the presence of the >>>> scons build. >>>> >>>> All of that is more of jfyi rather than feeling sentimental about >>>> nuking it :) >>>> -Emil >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__people.freedesktop.org_-7Ecbrill_dri-2Dlog_-3Fchannel-3Ddri-2Ddevel-26highlight-5Fnames-3Dandy1978-26date-3D2015-2D02-2D26&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=0--RMUucqcy-hAGpX9G5a-U9MF5M607lG9i3Bm4eD2w&s=G-FQcwnoms56_DZd1eCFZAu3K6T9oDhuuqiIVGC7n6o&e= >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the info Emil. >>> >>> The osmesa I removed from scons was the one with classic sw rasterizer. >>> >> That's precisely the one they are using. Although I'll add a note in the >> release notes (update the rest of the docs) so that there is no funny >> surprises :-) >> >>> The osmesa w/ softpipe/llvmpipe is in src/gallium/targets/osmesa , but >>> was never integrated into scons build (just autotools.) >>> >>> I'm OK adding support to build osmesa on Windows with llvmpipe/softpipe, >>> but I don't think there's value in supporting the classic rasterizer -- >>> less code that we need to worry about MSVC portability. I might give it >>> a go when I find some time. >>> >> I see your concern and I'm not trying to force anything on you. >> >>> >>> For the record, there was a point in time where I wanted SCons to build >>> most of Mesa in the hope of replacing autotools, which is why scons >>> build more than just Windows. But it's a loosing battle. Nowadays I'm >>> more interested in reducing the SCons scope as much as possible, so >>> there's less stuff for me and everybody else to maintain. >>> >>> (And if there's a build system that could really work across multiple >>> platforms and make everybody happy, my bet would not be scons, but >>> rather cmake. But I doubt there will ever be agreement or time to take >>> such enterprise anyway.) >>> >> Fwiw if I have to choose between scons and cmake I would go for the >> latter. Yet considering the amount of work/time required, I'd assume >> that fixing the autotools bugs would be the faster route. If you're ok >> with the idea, feel free to submit bugs and I'll check them over. > > I'm afraid that getting autotools to work with MSVC would be harder than > writing a completely new build system from scratch. MinGW's doable, but > not MSVC. And we must support MSVC, as MinGW is OK for quick testing has > too many drawbacks to be used for production drivers. > Was under the impression that MSYS + the cccl wrapper handles the chaos. Never tried it though so it might be completely broken. Just a note for people who haven't heard of the latter [1] [2].
-Emil [1] http://cccl.sourceforge.net/ [2] https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/build-aux/cccl _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
