On 28.08.2014 19:58, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 28 August 2014 05:21, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
Sure, it's not impossible, but is that really the kind of process you
want users to go through when bisecting a regression?
I appreciate your theoretical concern, but in practice, people don't seem to
have trouble bisecting radeonsi regressions in general.
I suspect you may be getting some selection bias there.
As far as Wine users are concerned, we certainly seem to have more
r600g users than radeonsi ones.
That's hardly surprising, considering the respective periods of
availability of the hardware and drivers.
For Wine developers that comparison is even worse; as far as I'm aware
none of the regular developers regularly develop on radeonsi. I've seen
a couple more casual developers try, but I suspect they essentially gave
up once they realized how much work would be required to make the Wine
tests pass on radeonsi.
What kind of work are you referring to?
From a piglit perspective, radeonsi has been on par with r600g for a
while, possibly even slightly better now. Please file bug reports for
Wine test failures.
Perhaps more concretely, I think the r600-sb backend works at least as
well as the r600-llvm one,
SB currently works better overall for graphics, which is why we decided
to make it the default.
and not for lack of effort put into the latter.
Sounds like you're overestimating the effort put into the LLVM R600
backend for pre-SI graphics.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
