Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Marek Olšák
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 28/04/2011 11:50, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> Would the attached patch be ok with you? Or do you have a better idea?
>
> I'm wondering if it makes any sense to build the various gallium hardware
> drivers whe
On 28/04/2011 11:50, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Would the attached patch be ok with you? Or do you have a better idea?
I'm wondering if it makes any sense to build the various gallium hardware
drivers when not ./configured --with-driver=dri? (at the moment svga i915 i965
r300 are all automatically enabl
Would the attached patch be ok with you? Or do you have a better idea?
Marek
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Jon TURNEY
wrote:
>
> On 23/04/2011 09:48, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >
> >> The Mesa state tracker uses SWTNL for GL selection/feedb
On 23/04/2011 09:48, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
>> The Mesa state tracker uses SWTNL for GL selection/feedback regardless of
>> the driver. Some SPECviewperf viewsets and CAD apps use it. So using LLVM
>> speeds up selection/feedback for all galliu
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:48:49 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jose Fonseca
> wrote:
> >
> > > The Mesa state tracker uses SWTNL for GL selection/feedback regardless
> of
> > > the driver. Some SPECviewpe
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:48:49 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> > The Mesa state tracker uses SWTNL for GL selection/feedback regardless of
> > the driver. Some SPECviewperf viewsets and CAD apps use it. So using LLVM
> > speeds up selection/
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> The Mesa state tracker uses SWTNL for GL selection/feedback regardless of
> the driver. Some SPECviewperf viewsets and CAD apps use it. So using LLVM
> speeds up selection/feedback for all gallium drivers.
>
> We have only tested LLVM with x8
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Marek Olšák
> wrote:
> > ---
> > configure.ac | 5 +
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> > index 8e9f73f..84a75c4 100644
> > --- a/configure.ac
> > +++ b/c
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> ---
> configure.ac | 5 +
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index 8e9f73f..84a75c4 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -1778,6 +1778,11 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE(
Sounds good, but distros shipping LLVM 2.6 or 2.8 should really apply the LLVM
fixes I have collected in http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jrfonseca/llvm/ to avoid
running into problems.
One mergely using SWTNL might not get hit as hard by these bugs, but if one
uses full rasterization on llvmpipe t
---
configure.ac |5 +
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 8e9f73f..84a75c4 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -1778,6 +1778,11 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE([gallium-r300],
[build gallium r300 @<:@default=disabled@:>@])
11 matches
Mail list logo
