On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:31:31PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:17:35PM +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > So, here is a patch that should let libGL to build again on > > alpha. I've not done a full clean xenocara build with it yet though, > > given how slow my alpha is. > > > > In addition to the non-existent sync operation, I had to force 2 files > > to build with -O0. > > > > There is a lot of Makefile.in churn since I did some autotools > > hackery... > > Any idea which of the -O1 options triggers it? > > According to gcc(1): > > -O turns on the following optimization flags: -fdefer-pop > -fdelayed-branch -fguess-branch-probability -fcprop-registers > -fif-conversion -fif-conversion2 -ftree-ccp -ftree-dce > -ftree-dominator-opts -ftree-dse -ftree-ter -ftree-lrs -ftree-sra > -ftree-copyrename -ftree-fre -ftree-ch -funit-at-a-time > -fmerge-constants
no idea. I just went directly to -O0. If someone else wants to narrow that down... I won't have time to try further build options in the coming week. > > So alpha is in the same situation mips64 was then? > > Going by /sys/arch/alpha/include/atomic.h there are atomics, > which sync builtins does gcc not implement on alpha? As I pointed out in a previous mail it's p_atomic_cmpxchg() that is missing. Again I went to the easy road to define PIPE_ATOMIC_UNLOCKED because I wanted something quick and easy and haven't seen a simple way to tell Mesa that it should fallback to unlocked only for specific operations. The question is should I commit this now and let you or other people with alphas tweak it to get a libGL & friends available for 5.9 or do we postpone that after 5.9 ? -- Matthieu Herrb
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
