On 24/01/17 13:11, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 23 January 2017 at 19:39, Tobias Droste wrote:
Am Montag, 23. Januar 2017, 11:53:18 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb
On 23 January 2017 at 19:39, Tobias Droste wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. Januar 2017, 11:53:18 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
>> On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> > On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
>> >> Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
>> >>> On 18 J
Am 23.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Tobias Droste:
> Am Montag, 23. Januar 2017, 11:53:18 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
>> On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 18 January 2
Am Montag, 23. Januar 2017, 11:53:18 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
> On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
> >> Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> >>> On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >> In or
On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca wrote:
In order to untangle things we want to have a distinction between the
gallium (gallivm af
On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
>> On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> >>> In order to untangle things we want to have a distinction between the
>> >>> gallium (gallivm afaict) and other users - R
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >>> In order to untangle things we want to have a distinction between the
> >>> gallium (gallivm afaict) and other users - RADV presently.
> >>> So how about we update the RADV ins
On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>>> In order to untangle things we want to have a distinction between the
>>> gallium (gallivm afaict) and other users - RADV presently.
>>> So how about we update the RADV instances and ensure that the we set
>>> the HAVE_{RADV,}_LLVM lot appropri
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Tobias Droste
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:12:37 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
> On 18/01/17 17:51, Tobias Droste wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 15:40:22 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> >> On 18 January 2017 at 15:11, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >>> I've reverted this and
On 18/01/17 17:51, Tobias Droste wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 15:40:22 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
On 18 January 2017 at 15:11, Jose Fonseca wrote:
I've reverted this and took a closer look.
I'm fine with autoconf glue doing whatever: HAVE_LLVM -> HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM
and what not.
But I'
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 15:40:22 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 18 January 2017 at 15:11, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > I've reverted this and took a closer look.
> >
> > I'm fine with autoconf glue doing whatever: HAVE_LLVM -> HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM
> > and what not.
> >
> > But I'm afraid I can't a
On 18 January 2017 at 15:11, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I've reverted this and took a closer look.
>
> I'm fine with autoconf glue doing whatever: HAVE_LLVM -> HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM
> and what not.
>
> But I'm afraid I can't accept replacing HAVE_LLVM in the .c code, because:
> - it breaks the other build
I've reverted this and took a closer look.
I'm fine with autoconf glue doing whatever: HAVE_LLVM ->
HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM and what not.
But I'm afraid I can't accept replacing HAVE_LLVM in the .c code, because:
- it breaks the other build systems if not updated
- but above all, it creates merge co
This change was commited and completely broke scons build.
It's also the first time I see HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM name. I don't mind if
people fiddle with autoconf and break it as much as they want, but
please don't fiddle with gallium/llvmpipe .C code without me or Roland's
review or acked by.
I'm
Hey Emil,
did you have to time look at this?
What should we do?
I would argue to first merge what I have now and if you really want to
disallow llvm-less gallium with llvm-full radv we could do this later and
revert the changes of patch 4.
Personally I think it's ok how it is now. Gallium with
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016, 17:14:12 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 8 December 2016 at 02:03, Tobias Droste wrote:
> > Gallium code used HAVE_LLVM to check if it needs to compile code for
> > LLVM in header and source files.
> >
> > With the new logic HAVE_LLVM is always set. Use extra defin
On 8 December 2016 at 02:03, Tobias Droste wrote:
> Gallium code used HAVE_LLVM to check if it needs to compile code for
> LLVM in header and source files.
>
> With the new logic HAVE_LLVM is always set. Use extra define to figure
> out if LLVM is used.
>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/s
Gallium code used HAVE_LLVM to check if it needs to compile code for
LLVM in header and source files.
With the new logic HAVE_LLVM is always set. Use extra define to figure
out if LLVM is used.
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99010
Signed-off-by: Tobias Droste
---
config
18 matches
Mail list logo