On 21/01/17 15:40, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Le 21/01/2017 à 16:20, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
is there any downside in compiling with
OpenCL 2.0 support,
Yes - on older (Ivybridge/Haswell - no emitUntypedReadA64Instruction)
hardware, a 2.0-enabled beignet won't work, at all.
That’s what I’ve feared but after trying it here I haven’t encountered
more issues than with a non-2.0-enabled beignet.
Trying it on what hardware? There might be hardware (all of gen8 if
this assert(0) is the only failure point) where a 2.0 build doesn't
crash outright but also doesn't have working 2.0.
What would be the point of installing both [2.0 and non-2.0]? Just so that
softwares not
needing 2.0 don’t get hurt on performances?
That, and users (of software with non-broken empty platform handling)
not having to think about which one they actually need. (I discovered
the existence of broken empty platform handling while considering
whether to create an opencl-icd-all package, which would depend on
beignet, mesa-opencl-icd and pocl.)
I at least need to decide quickly, as Debian freezes this week.
But does that really applies to Debian?
Because AFAIU, there is no llvm 3.9 in Debian Stretch:
There is LLVM 3.9 in Debian Stretch (I already build beignet with it),
it just isn't the default (the one that gets the plain 'llvm' name):
https://packages.debian.org/stretch/llvm-3.9
_______________________________________________
Beignet mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
