On 16 June 2015 at 20:18, Tom Stellard <t...@stellard.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:07:57PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 13 June 2015 at 19:16, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > configure.ac | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> > index 34d1ac9..e6d947e 100644
>> > --- a/configure.ac
>> > +++ b/configure.ac
>> > @@ -1929,7 +1929,7 @@ if test "x$enable_gallium_llvm" = xyes; then
>> > LLVM_COMPONENTS="${LLVM_COMPONENTS} all-targets ipo linker
>> > instrumentation"
>> > LLVM_COMPONENTS="${LLVM_COMPONENTS} irreader option
>> > objcarcopts profiledata"
>> > fi
>> > - DEFINES="${DEFINES} -DHAVE_LLVM=0x0$LLVM_VERSION_INT
>> > -DLLVM_VERSION_PATCH=$LLVM_VERSION_PATCH"
>> > + DEFINES="${DEFINES} -DHAVE_LLVM=0x0$LLVM_VERSION_INT
>> > -DMESA_LLVM_VERSION_PATCH=$LLVM_VERSION_PATCH"
>>
>> Silly questions:
>> If LLVM already sets LLVM_VERSION_PATCH shouldn't we be using it,
>> rather than setting our own ? Perhaps we can drop the define
>> altogether, considering that we're not using it ?
>>
>
> Depending on the version of llvm and the build system that was used
> LLVM_VERSION_PATH may or not be defined,
Is there a version where this is resolved, for all build systems ?
> so we can't rely on it.
>
Currently none of code does, thus my question about dropping it altogether.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
