On 26 January 2017 at 20:17, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> wrote:
> Am 26.01.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Emil Velikov:
>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
>>
>> Currently we can build draw without LLVM thus honouring SOFTPIPE_USE_LLVM
>> is misleading even if most of the code nicely falls-back to no-op in the
>> lack of LLVM.
>>
>> That does not seem to be the case in softpipe_draw_vbo() where extra
>> prepare {prepare,cleanup}_{vertex,geometry}_sampling is present.
>>
>> Haven't checked how much overhead the causes, but omitting it is the
>> correct thing to do, afaict.
>>
>> Note: the topic of "is it a smart idea to have softpipe build with
>> LLVM-less draw" is to be checked another day.
> This might not make much sense for other drivers, but for softpipe it
> probably really does - it also defaults to non-llvm draw.
> You are right though that we shouldn't set use_llvm if we didn't build
> with llvm.
>
> As for appending LLVM to the name, this sounds about right to me. Albeit
> what we probably really want to know is if draw is actually using llvm,
> not just if it was built with it (in particular with softpipe which
> defaults to non-llvm). But no big deal...
>
Agreed. I'm drawing a blank (pun intended) about good, non-ambiguous,
yet brief, wording to use.
Any suggestions ?> For the series: > Reviewed-by: Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> > Thank you Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
