On 22 June 2015 at 15:01, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 19/06/15 23:09, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2015 at 21:26, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 19/06/15 20:56, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> A lovely series inspired (more like 'was awaken to send these out') by >>>> Pal Rohár, who was having issues when building xlib-libgl (plus the now >>>> enabled gles*) >>>> >>>> So here, we teach the final two static glapi users about shared-glapi, >>>> plus some related fixes. After this is done we can finally start >>>> transitioning to shared-only glapi, with some more details as mentioned >>>> in one of the patches: >>>> >>>> XXX: With this one done, we can finally transition with enforcing >>>> shared-glapi, and >>>> >>>> - link the dri modules against libglapi.so, add --no-undefined to >>>> the LDFLAGS >>>> - drop the dlopen(libglapi.so/libGL.so, RTLD_GLOBAL) workarounds >>>> in the loaders - libGL, libEGL and libgbm. >>>> - start killing off/cleaning up the dispatch ? >>>> >>>> The caveats: >>>> 1) up to what stage do we care about static libraries >>>> - libgl (either dri or xlib based) >>>> - osmesa >>>> - libEGL >>>> >>>> 2) how about other platforms (scons) ? >>>> - currently the scons uses static glapi, >>>> - would we need the dlopen(...) on windows ? >>>> >>>> Hope everyone is excited about this one as I am :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> Maybe I missed the context of this changes, but why this matters or is an >>> improvement? >>> >> If one goes the extra mile (which this series doesn't) - one configure >> option less, substantial some code de-duplication and consistent use >> of the code amongst all components provided. This way any >> improvements/cleanups made to the shared glapi will be available to >> osmesa/xlib-libgl. > > > I'm perfectly happy with removing the configure option. > > And I understand the benefits of unified code paths, but I believe that for > this particular case, the difference in requirements really demands the > separate code paths. > >>> In summary, having the ability of using a shared glapi sounds great, but >>> forcing shared glapi everywhere, sounds a bad idea. >>> >> I'm suspecting that people might be keen on the following idea - use >> static glapi for osmesa/xlib-libgl and shared one everywhere else? > > > Yes, that sounds reasonable for me. (Needs libgl-gdi too.) > Indeed. Everything gdi is build only via scons so we'll touch it only if needed.
>> >> I fear that this will lead to further separation/bit-rot between the >> different implementations, but it seems like the bester compromise. > > > I don't feel strongly between: a) using the same source code for both > static/shared glapi (switched by a pre-processor define), or b) only share > the interface but have shared/static glapi implementations. I'm actually > not that familiar with that code. > > > Either way, we can have two glapi build targets (a shared-glapi and a > static-glapipe) side-by-side, so that there are no more source-wide > configure flags. > In theory it should be fine, in practise... I'm rather cautious as mapi is the most convoluted part in mesa, and with the "subdir-objects" option being toggled soon things may go (albeit unlikely) subtly haywire. > > I believe a lot of the complexity of that code comes from assembly. I > wonder if it's really justified nowadays (and even if it is, whether it > would be better served with GNU C assembly.) Futhermore, I believe on > Windows we use any assembly, so if we split shared/static glapi source code, > we could probably abandon assembly from the static-glapi. > I'm not 100% sure but I'd suspect that Cygwin might use it when combined with swrast_dri. Don't know what others use - iirc some of the BSD folks are moving over to llvm. That I aside there is a massive amount of #ifdef spaghetti, apart from the assembly code. Can I have your ack/nack on the idea of having shared-glapi available for xlib-libgl (patches 2, 3 and 4), until we have both glapi's built in in parallel ? As mentioned originally, currently we fail to build if one enabled gles* and xlib-libgl and adding another hack in configure.ac is feel like flocking up a dead horse. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
