On 23 August 2014 00:15, Tom Stellard <t...@stellard.net> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet <hverb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 21.08.2014 04:29, Henri Verbeet wrote: >> >> >>> For whatever it's worth, I have been avoiding radeonsi in part because >> >> >>> of the LLVM dependency. Some of the other issues already mentioned >> >> >>> aside, I also think it makes it just painful to do bisects over >> >> >>> moderate/longer periods of time. >> >> >> >> >> >> More painful, sure, but not too bad IME. In particular, if you know the >> >> >> regression is in Mesa, you can always use a stable release of LLVM for >> >> >> the bisect. You only need to change the --with-llvm-prefix= parameter >> >> >> to >> >> >> Mesa's configure for that. Of course, it could still be mildly painful >> >> >> if you need to go so far back that the current stable LLVM release >> >> >> wasn't supported yet. But how often does that happen? Very rarely for >> >> >> me. >> >> >> >> >> > Sure, it's not impossible, but is that really the kind of process you >> >> > want users to go through when bisecting a regression? Perhaps throw in >> >> > building 32-bit versions of both Mesa and LLVM on 64-bit as well if >> >> > they want to run 32-bit applications. >> >> > >> >> >> Without LLVM, I'm not sure there would be a driver you could avoid. :) >> >> >> >> >> > R600g didn't really exist either, and that one seems to have worked >> >> > out fine. I think in a large part because of work done by Jerome and >> >> > Dave in the early days, but regardless. From what I've seen from SI, I >> >> > don't think radeonsi needed to be a separate driver to start with, and >> >> > while its ISA is certainly different from R600-Cayman, it doesn't >> >> > particularly strike me as much harder to work with. >> >> > >> >> > Back to the more immediate topic though, I think think that on >> >> > occasion the discussion is framed as "Is there any reason using LLVM >> >> > IR wouldn't work?", while it would perhaps be more appropriate to >> >> > think of as "Would using LLVM IR provide enough advantages to justify >> >> > adding a LLVM dependency to core Mesa?". >> >> >> >> Could we use an llvm compatible IR? is also a question I'd like to see >> >> answered. >> > >> > >> > What do you mean by llvm compatible? Do you mean forking their IR inside >> > mesa or just something that's easy to translate back and forth? >> > >> >> Importing/forking the llvm IR code with a different symbol set, and >> trying to not intentionally >> be incompatible with their llvm. >> > > What would be the purpose of doing this? Avoiding a dependency on the LLVM > libraries?
Spltting the problem of using llvm IR from the problem of linking with llvm, since people appear to be conflating them. So yes avoid the direct dep for now. Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
