On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> With this in mind we can drop the LLVM requirement, which some
> builders/distros explicitly patch out.
Like who?
I'm not sure why binary distros would do such a thing. Gentoo used to
have a patch that removed the AC_MSG_ERROR from configur
On 26 January 2017 at 19:32, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 26 January 2017 at 18:54, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>> They still have to ship LLVM to have GCN support. Or do they simply not ship
>>> radeonsi?
>>>
>> The latter - they omit anything that
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 26 January 2017 at 18:54, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> They still have to ship LLVM to have GCN support. Or do they simply not ship
>> radeonsi?
>>
> The latter - they omit anything that requires LLVM.
> I dare not discuss how good/bad/etc of a c
On 26 January 2017 at 18:54, Marek Olšák wrote:
> They still have to ship LLVM to have GCN support. Or do they simply not ship
> radeonsi?
>
The latter - they omit anything that requires LLVM.
I dare not discuss how good/bad/etc of a choice that it, but some
people have their reasons.
-Emil
P.S.
They still have to ship LLVM to have GCN support. Or do they simply not
ship radeonsi?
Marek
On Jan 26, 2017 7:30 PM, "Emil Velikov" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a few small fixes/functionality improvements when dealing with
> LLVM.
>
> Most notably the series adds "LLVM" string [when applicable
Hi all,
Here's a few small fixes/functionality improvements when dealing with
LLVM.
Most notably the series adds "LLVM" string [when applicable] to the .get_name()
callback for drivers that use draw.
Thus developer can respond accordingly - be that "rebuild with LLVM or
enjoy the bad performan
