----- Original Message ----- > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 07:52 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On 7/21/12 5:53 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> Hi guys > > > >> > > > >> LLVM 2.8 doesn't appear to have mcjit, so we end up with no > > > >> llvm > > > >> libs > > > >> defined, > > > > > > > > Yes, mcjit is only used/necessary from llvm-3.1 onwards, so the > > > > autoconf code should check conditiionally. > > > > > > > > BTW, I'll soon commit a change that will stop using mcjit from > > > > 3.2 > > > > onwards (as with the current LLVM 3.2 trunk, AVX is supported > > > > by > > > > the old jit, which is more stable/polished). > > Can you clarify the scope of "will stop using mcjit from 3.2 > onwards"?
What I meant by that was already done in commit c30bf68946433d26f672c741a763bba4712aada7. > Is that specific to (the Intel AVX extensions?) related matters, or > is > that a mesa-wide statement? (I am specifically interested in the > llvmpipe related parts that Adam touched on below). The MC-JIT vs old JIT is currently a build time choice (based on #ifdef's). Essentially, we only use MC-JIT for LLVM 3.1, if AVX support hasn't been backported (ie. when not using my backports_31 branch below). It could be made into a runtime choice if you prefer, ie., based of the availability of AVX. Or we could just disable MC-JIT altogether, and wait until it replaces the old jit upstream. BTW, for best results using llvmpipe on 3.1, please consider using http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jrfonseca/llvm/log/?h=backports_31 as it includes some backports of bugs/enhacements that affect llvmpipe to LLVM 3.1. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
