On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 08:54 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 08/05/2016 07:05 PM, ⚛ wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Mesa s
On 08/08/2016 09:52 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 08:54 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 08/05/2016 07:05 PM, ⚛ wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely
>>> wrote:
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
>
> Mesa source code prior to th
On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 08:54 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 07:05 PM, ⚛ wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and
> >
On 08/05/2016 07:05 PM, ⚛ wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
>>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and
>>> RTLD_LAZY.
>>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>>>
>>> In comparison
On 06/08/16 11:05 AM, ⚛ wrote:
>
> Question 2: Exists there a reason for _not_ linking radeonsi_dri.so,
> swrastg_dri.so, etc, directly to Mesa's libGL.so?
*_dri.so can be used in scenarios where libGL isn't involved at all, so
linking them against libGL would introduce an artificial dependency.
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 18:52 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Jan Vesely
> wrote:
> >
> > The situation I'm concerned about is as
> > follows:
> > 1.) mesa builds fine using existing build environment.
> >
> > 2.) I update LLVM. This update changes symbols (function parameter
> >
On 6 August 2016 at 01:42, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>
> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruction count
> of small GL apps (
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> The situation I'm concerned about is as
> follows:
> 1.) mesa builds fine using existing build environment.
>
> 2.) I update LLVM. This update changes symbols (function parameter
> changed type, a function was moved to header, or devirtualization
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 17:34 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jan Vesely
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 13:00 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
> > >
> > > We could add a verifier to the build process that tests the
> > > foo_dri.so
> > > libraries (as well as all other libs subject to dlo
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 13:00 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
>> We could add a verifier to the build process that tests the
>> foo_dri.so
>> libraries (as well as all other libs subject to dlopen by Mesa) for
>> undefined symbols:
>>
>> $ LD_PRELOAD=libGL.so ldd
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 17:20 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jan Vesely
> wrote:
> >
> > sure I can set LD_BIND_NOW
> > env var, but there are programs that have much stronger case for
> > using
> > lazy binding (like LO) that would be negatively affected.
>
> What is "LO"?
lib
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 07:24 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2016 4:00 AM, "⚛" <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Rob Clark
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.co
> > > m>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
>
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> sure I can set LD_BIND_NOW
> env var, but there are programs that have much stronger case for using
> lazy binding (like LO) that would be negatively affected.
What is "LO"?
___
mesa-dev mailing list
m
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 13:00 +0200, ⚛ wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Rob Clark
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and
> > > RTLD_LAZY.
> > > This patch remove
On Aug 6, 2016 4:00 AM, "⚛" <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
> >> This patch removes all
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 06.08.2016 04:05, ⚛ wrote:
>
>> Question 2: Exists there a reason for _not_ linking radeonsi_dri.so,
>> swrastg_dri.so, etc, directly to Mesa's libGL.so? The Gallium
>> *_dri.so libraries are the same inode on the filesys
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Rob Clark writes:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
>>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>>>
>>> In c
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>>
>> In comparison to early binding, la
On 06.08.2016 04:05, ⚛ wrote:
> Question 2: Exists there a reason for _not_ linking radeonsi_dri.so,
> swrastg_dri.so, etc, directly to Mesa's libGL.so? The Gallium
> *_dri.so libraries are the same inode on the filesystem.
Sure about that ?
nekrad@orion:~/MESA/lib/dri$ ls -lai
total 508348
6750
Rob Clark writes:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>>
>> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruc
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:05 PM, ⚛ <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question 4: Is it planned for *_dri.so belonging to Gallium/DRI _not_
> to be mapped to the same inode on the filesystem in the future? If
> there is no such plan, what was the original point of having multiple
> _dri.so files ma
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>
> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruction count
> of small GL a
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and
>> RTLD_LAZY.
>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>>
>> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces C
On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote:
> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and
> RTLD_LAZY.
> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
>
> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruction
> count
> of small GL apps (e.g: glxinfo)
Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and RTLD_LAZY.
This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY.
In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruction count
of small GL apps (e.g: glxinfo) by 6 million instructions.
Larger apps won't notice the differenc
25 matches
Mail list logo
