On 22 February 2016 at 22:15, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Sure thing. Pop it in an earlier commit and say something like "it
> does X as opposed to the current Y. we'll require the former with the
> follow-up openswr build infrastructure". Sorry to bother you with
> this, but my scons-foo is not ideal
On 22 February 2016 at 20:39, Rowley, Timothy O
wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to dig into this patch. Figured I’d address a few
> of the comments now, and work on all your points for the next revision.
>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>
>> On 18 February 2016 at 01:
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this patch. Figured I’d address a few
of the comments now, and work on all your points for the next revision.
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> On 18 February 2016 at 01:53, Tim Rowley wrote:
>
> Don't be shy to mention something i
On 18 February 2016 at 01:53, Tim Rowley wrote:
Don't be shy to mention something in the commit message - which of the
tree targets has been tested. Do they all build/work on linux,
windows, BSD, other. Pretty much anything that you believe it's
important. You might also include something that is
---
configure.ac | 18
scons/custom.py | 2 +-
scons/llvm.py | 8 +-
src/gallium/Makefile.am | 6 ++
src/gallium/SConscript| 3 +
src/gallium/d
