On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:55:44PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Tom Stellard writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:07:36PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >> On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >> > Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
> >> > because of new fe
Tom Stellard writes:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:07:36PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> > Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
>> > because of new features in our LLVM backend that the radeonsi driver
>> > depends on to ad
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:07:36PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
> > because of new features in our LLVM backend that the radeonsi driver
> > depends on to advertise all GL features. Some
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:35:02PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 02:17 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:10:03PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >> On 08/20/2014 11:58 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> >>>
On 28.08.2014 19:58, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 28 August 2014 05:21, Michel Dänzer 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
lf of Marek
Olšák
Sent: 30 August 2014 12:07
To: Ian Romanick
Cc: Greg Fischer; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/16] A new IR for Mesa
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> Our plan is
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
>> because of new features in our LLVM backend that the radeonsi driver
>> depends on to advertise all GL features. Some new featu
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>> At least with the other components on which Mesa relies (e.g., libdrm,
>> 2D drivers, etc.) it's largely the same group of people with the same
>> set of goals.
>
>
> This was only true until Tom Stellard started to manage LLVM point relea
Maybe a heretical thought, but how close are you guys to shortcut the
front end compiler with let's say the LLVM back end in radeonsi?
Regards,
Christian.
Am 29.08.2014 um 17:51 schrieb Greg Fischer:
Some additional information on GlassyMesa from the engineer who integrated
LunarGlass and wrot
After all the messages, some think that llvm is the solution.
And why is the Connor solution right ?
This is an very hard problem and some people want the easiest way out.
That is llvm.
I think we need the Connor in house approach.
I think we can have compiler experts, here.
If no one want to say
Some additional information on GlassyMesa from the engineer who integrated
LunarGlass and wrote the LLVM Bottom IR to GLSL IR pass.
[Begin Steve...]
I wasn't subscribed to the mesa-dev list at the time of prior replies to
this thread, so sending this to the list via Greg.
Per request from Thomas
I'd like to say up front that while I could imagine that perhaps some
of my comments on radeonsi could be perceived as harsh, it's not my
intention to pick on radeonsi or anyone working on radeonsi in
particular. I just think radeonsi / r600g is probably the best
comparison inside Mesa for a driver
At least with the other components on which Mesa relies (e.g., libdrm,
2D drivers, etc.) it's largely the same group of people with the same
set of goals.
This was only true until Tom Stellard started to manage LLVM point releases.
Christian.
Am 28.08.2014 um 00:07 schrieb Ian Romanick:
On 08
On 21.08.2014 18:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer 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 mak
> So, I don't suppose it is possible to have multiple side-by-side llvm's?
They each go in their own subdirectory, with the version number in the path.
> I don't really look forward to having to recompile llvm when switching
between branches.
LLVM would sit next to mesa, fully compiled, as many
On 08/27/2014 02:55 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
> because of new features in our LLVM backend that the radeonsi driver
> depends on to advertise all GL features. Some new features listed for
> the radeonsi driver in Mesa release notes a
Our plan is to always require the latest released version of LLVM
because of new features in our LLVM backend that the radeonsi driver
depends on to advertise all GL features. Some new features listed for
the radeonsi driver in Mesa release notes are only enabled if you have
latest LLVM from git/sv
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:26 PM, John Kessenich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If Mesa used an LLVM IR for it's shader compiler stack, it would most likely
>
> Pick a specific shipped version. Shipped versions are stable and
> unchanging. Upgrading to a newer version would be done only by choice, on
> Mesa's
Hi Connor,
Lots of good work in defining a new IR.
I would like to address the LLVM issues: LunarG's LunarGLASS conventions
on LLVM IR generally solve these problems: It has algorithms to re-deduce
structured control flow, and if you just want to use LLVM IR as an
intermediate language, it could
Interesting points Jose. It turns LLVM IR is an IR that works well for
both uses. Slicing it a bit differently, if you were to look at just a
"binary language" (that is, not a "binary representation"), it is
a) the *language* is good for communicating between different layers
b) the *representa
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:26 PM, John Kessenich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If Mesa used an LLVM IR for it's shader compiler stack, it would most likely
>
> Pick a specific shipped version. Shipped versions are stable and
> unchanging. Upgrading to a newer version would be done only by choice, on
> Mesa's
Note that it is easy to add swizzle, saturate, clamp, etc. intrinsics to
LLVM IR. Going a step further, LunarGLASS adds these, and then asks the
current back end what it would like to see (back-end queries).
If a back end says it likes a particular form, then LunarGLASS can
transform the LLVM IR
Hi,
If Mesa used an LLVM IR for it's shader compiler stack, it would most likely
- Pick a specific shipped version. Shipped versions are stable and
unchanging. Upgrading to a newer version would be done only by choice, on
Mesa's schedule.
- Not bring the source into mesa: it works p
On 26/08/14 18:59, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
If LLVM was a useless piece of junk, we wouldn't have any trouble adding it
as a dependency, as we would be the sole user. But precisely because LLVM
is successful in so many use cases, hence several pac
My apologies for a too-brief response to this question.
GlassyMesa links LLVM statically into Mesa. I believe that previous posters
to this thread have already done a pretty good job of arguing that this is
at least a workable approach.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Kenne
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 06:45:42 PM Greg Fischer wrote:
> The GlassyMesa effort is ongoing despite the lack of recent activity. We
> continue to embrace LLVM as a basis for shader compilation in Mesa and
> elsewhere.
>
> We agree that translating from LLVM back "up" to GLSL IR is problematic a
The GlassyMesa effort is ongoing despite the lack of recent activity. We
continue to embrace LLVM as a basis for shader compilation in Mesa and
elsewhere.
We agree that translating from LLVM back "up" to GLSL IR is problematic and
that an architecture that supports LLVM backends would be desirable
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:05:35 AM Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/25/2014 06:54 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > tbh, it sounds a lot to me like if we start using LLVM more
> > heavily/widely in mesa we should import LLVM (or at least the parts we
> > need) into the mesa src tree.. as it is, the logistic
=
> actually we already do the opposite thing in fedora..
>
> you are right, normally distro's prefer to unbundle things.. LLVM is
> kinda "special" (which really should be a warning sign right there)
>
In Fedora we unbundle llvm, in RHEL we create a special package of
llvm for mesa to use, but t
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 26/08/14 10:04, Christian König wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.08.2014 um 03:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke
>>> wrote:
>>
>> we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer Mesa
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Helland
wrote:
> While I haven't heard about those projects, there's also GlassyMesa.
> Greg from LunarG (CC'd) posted about this to the mailing list. [1]
> However it looks like the github activity has stopped,
> and there's no new info on the projects webs
While I haven't heard about those projects, there's also GlassyMesa.
Greg from LunarG (CC'd) posted about this to the mailing list. [1]
However it looks like the github activity has stopped,
and there's no new info on the projects website since its announcement.
While it's not exactly the same as
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> If LLVM was a useless piece of junk, we wouldn't have any trouble adding it
> as a dependency, as we would be the sole user. But precisely because LLVM
> is successful in so many use cases, hence several packages depend on it, we
> shouldn't
On 08/25/2014 06:54 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> tbh, it sounds a lot to me like if we start using LLVM more
> heavily/widely in mesa we should import LLVM (or at least the parts we
> need) into the mesa src tree.. as it is, the logistical/distro issues
> of LLVM have been what has scared me off the most
On 08/25/2014 06:58 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> Importing/forking the llvm IR code with a different symbol set, and
>>> trying to not intentionally
>>> be incompatible with their llvm.
>>
>> That sounds like a huge amount of work, possibly even
Am 26.08.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
On 26/08/14 10:04, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.08.2014 um 03:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke
wrote:
we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer Mesa
releases because radeon depended on a ve
On 26/08/14 10:04, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.08.2014 um 03:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke
wrote:
we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer Mesa
releases because radeon depended on a version of LLVM newer than the
one they were shi
Am 26.08.2014 um 03:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer Mesa
releases because radeon depended on a version of LLVM newer than the
one they were shipping, [...]
That's news to me, can you be
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> Importing/forking the llvm IR code with a different symbol set, and
>> trying to not intentionally
>> be incompatible with their llvm.
>
> That sounds like a huge amount of work, possibly even more work than
> going it on our own because th
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> > we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer Mesa
>> > releases because radeon depended on a version of LLVM newer than the
>> > one they were shipping, [...]
>>
>> That's news to me, can you be more specific?
>>
>> Tha
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2014 um 18:01 schrieb Connor Abbott:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 22.08.2014 um 17:13 schrieb Connor Abbott:
>>>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>
Am 22.08.2014 um 18:01 schrieb Connor Abbott:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Am 22.08.2014 um 17:13 schrieb Connor Abbott:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Ai
On 08/22/2014 02:17 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:10:03PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 08/20/2014 11:58 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
> O
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:10:03PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> Speaking of new shader stages... how would LLVM handle the 'precise'
>> keyword in tesselation shaders? I can envision ways to handle this in
>> an IR that we control, but it's
On 08/20/2014 11:58 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 19.08.2
On 08/20/2014 09:11 AM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 20
On 08/19/2014 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Tom Stellard writes:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 08/18/2014 05:44 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 16.08.2014 02:12, schrieb Connor Abbott:
>> I know what you might be thinking right now. "Wait, *another* IR? Don't
>> we already have like 5 of those, not counting all the driver-specific
>> ones? Isn't this stuff complicated enough already?"
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:17:00AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 23 August 2014 00:15, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2014 um 17:13 schrieb Connor Abbott:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> On
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2014 um 17:13 schrieb Connor Abbott:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> On
Am 22.08.2014 um 17:13 schrieb Connor Abbott:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer wrote
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> >> On 21.08.2014 04:29, Hen
On 23 August 2014 00:15, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> >> > On 21 August 2
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> >> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> >> On 21.08.201
In that case staying as close as possible to spir may make sense?
OG.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>> > On 2
On 22 August 2014 12:46, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> >> On 21.08.2014 04:29, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> >>> For whatever it's worth, I have been
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> > On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer 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 dep
On 21 August 2014 19:10, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer 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
On 21 August 2014 04:56, Michel Dänzer 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 ov
On 21.08.2014 03:56, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
>> Gentoo has also had trouble updating for similar reasons; Matt (the Gentoo
>> Mesa package mantainer) can probably comment more.
>
> Yes, at one point we were stuck two releases behind curren
On 21.08.2014 03:13, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>> we've already had problems where distros refused to ship newer
>>> Mesa releases because radeon depended on a version of LLVM newer
>>>
On 21.08.2014 04:29, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 20:13, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> I've also heard stories from friends of mine who use radeonsi that they
>> couldn't get new GL features or compiler fixes unless they upgrade both Mesa
>> /and/ LLVM, and that LLVM was usually either n
Am 20.08.2014 20:45, schrieb Matt Turner:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Roland Scheidegger
> wrote:
>> Am 20.08.2014 20:13, schrieb Kenneth Graunke:
>>> For example, Debian was stuck on Mesa 9.2.2 for 4 months (2013-12-08
>>> to 2014-03-22), and I was told this was because of LLVM versionin
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:26:15PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:19:15PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Conn
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:56:32AM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
> > Gentoo has also had trouble updating for similar reasons; Matt (the Gentoo
> > Mesa package mantainer) can probably comment more.
>
> Yes, at one point we were stuck two
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Stéphane Marchesin
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Having multiple versions installed in parallel breaks down pretty
>> easily. Where do the headers go? Where do all the executables go? Do
>> you version all of them and install on
On 20 August 2014 20:13, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> I've also heard stories from friends of mine who use radeonsi that they
> couldn't get new GL features or compiler fixes unless they upgrade both Mesa
> /and/ LLVM, and that LLVM was usually either not released or not available in
> their distri
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:19:15PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jere
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
>> Gentoo has also had trouble updating for similar reasons; Matt (the Gentoo
>> Mesa package mantainer) can probably comment more.
>
> Yes, at one point we were stuck two releases
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:19:15PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
> >> wrote:
> >> > Tom Stellard writes:
> >> >
> >> >>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > >>> On Mo
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Gentoo has also had trouble updating for similar reasons; Matt (the Gentoo
> Mesa package mantainer) can probably comment more.
Yes, at one point we were stuck two releases behind current Mesa (and
this is Gentoo!) because we couldn't ge
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 20.08.2014 20:13, schrieb Kenneth Graunke:
>> For example, Debian was stuck on Mesa 9.2.2 for 4 months (2013-12-08
>> to 2014-03-22), and I was told this was because of LLVM versioning
>> changes in the other drivers (primarily radeo
Am 20.08.2014 20:13, schrieb Kenneth Graunke:
> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer
>>> wrote:
On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:3
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 06:41:08 PM Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 16.08.2014 09:1
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue,
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
>>> wrote:
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Tom St
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> Tom Stellard writes:
>
>> On Tue, A
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 20.08.2014 um 14:33 schrieb Connor Abbott:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we can fix this by introducing new structured variants of the
>>> branch instruction in a way that doesn't alter
And don't forget that explicit vec4 becomes immensely amusing once you
add fp64/double to the problem.
OG.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>>
On
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
>>> wrote:
Tom Stellard writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Mon,
Am 20.08.2014 um 14:33 schrieb Connor Abbott:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Christian König
wrote:
I think we can fix this by introducing new structured variants of the
branch instruction in a way that doesn't alter the fundamental structure
of the IR. E.g. an if branch could look like:
i
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> I think we can fix this by introducing new structured variants of the
> branch instruction in a way that doesn't alter the fundamental structure
> of the IR. E.g. an if branch could look like:
>
> ifbr i1 , label , label , label
>
> Wher
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Ab
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Tom Stellard writes:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänze
On 20.08.2014 00:04, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Abbott wrote:
> I know what you might be thinking right now
I think we can fix this by introducing new structured variants of the
branch instruction in a way that doesn't alter the fundamental structure
of the IR. E.g. an if branch could look like:
ifbr i1 , label , label , label
Where both branches are guaranteed to converge at . Sure, this
will requ
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Tom Stellard writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>> > Tom Stellard writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> >>> On Mon,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
> > Tom Stellard writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>> > On 19.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Tom Stellard writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> > On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Mi
Tom Stellard writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> > On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> >>> On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Abbott wro
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>> On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Abbott wrote:
> I know what you mi
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 18.08.2014 19:05, schrieb Connor Abbott:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 18/08/1
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Abbott wrote:
I know what you might be thinking right now. "Wait, *another* IR? Don't
we already hav
On 18/08/14 17:25, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
On 18/08/14 14:21, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Roland Scheidegger
wrote:
Am 16.08.2014 02:12, schrieb Connor Abbott:
I know what you might be thinking right now. "Wait, *
Connor Abbott writes:
> I know what you might be thinking right now. "Wait, *another* IR? Don't
> we already have like 5 of those, not counting all the driver-specific
> ones? Isn't this stuff complicated enough already?" Well, there are some
> pretty good reasons to start afresh (again...). In t
On 19.08.2014 01:28, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 16.08.2014 09:12, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> I know what you might be thinking right now. "Wait, *another* IR? Don't
>>> we already have like 5 of those, not counting all the driver-specific
>>> o
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 18.08.2014 19:05, schrieb Connor Abbott:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 18/08/1
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo