karolherbst wrote: I guess I can really assume this isn't going to get merged? It's unfortunate because this now requires every distribution to patch their libclc packaging to get this working.
So I'm kinda interested what's the best course of action for this is, because it feels weird that bugs preventing applications from running (in this case compilation of kernels would fail due to missing functions implementations) are fine to have. Is it common to require distribution to fix those kind of LLVM issues in their packaging? Is there a way to notify them? Should we just vendor libclc in mesa and deal with backporting on our own and ask distributions to simply use our vendored version? What's LLVM's position on this from a project perspective? If you prefer distributions to not ship libclc and that we should just ship it as a vendored version inside mesa, that's fine by us. Just wondering what the expectations here are? And to be fair, this is just outfall from not catching the bug in time, but now distributions just started to ship with libclc-22 and it's kinda broken now... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207264 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
