[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 4/8] scons: Don't build osmesa.

[Emil Velikov]

On 25/03/15 19:58, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 25/03/15 19:35, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 25/03/15 15:21, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>>> On 25/03/15 14:53, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 21:16, Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>> There doesn't seem much interest on osmesa on Windows, particularly
>>>>> classic osmesa.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is indeed interest in osmesa on Windows, we should instead
>>>>> integrate src/gallium/targets/osmesa into SCons.
>>>> Afaict the Octave people still use it. There was a guy in #dri-devel
>>>> who was having issues with the Windows build not too long ago [1]
>>>>
>>>> Iirc the VTK folk are were using osmesa, although I'm not sure if (how
>>>> much) Windows support is a thing for them. Hence the presence of the
>>>> scons build.
>>>>
>>>> All of that is more of jfyi rather than feeling sentimental about
>>>> nuking it :)
>>>> -Emil
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__people.freedesktop.org_-7Ecbrill_dri-2Dlog_-3Fchannel-3Ddri-2Ddevel-26highlight-5Fnames-3Dandy1978-26date-3D2015-2D02-2D26&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=0--RMUucqcy-hAGpX9G5a-U9MF5M607lG9i3Bm4eD2w&s=G-FQcwnoms56_DZd1eCFZAu3K6T9oDhuuqiIVGC7n6o&e=
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info Emil.
>>>
>>> The osmesa I removed from scons was the one with classic sw rasterizer.
>>>
>> That's precisely the one they are using. Although I'll add a note in the
>> release notes (update the rest of the docs) so that there is no funny
>> surprises :-)
>>
>>> The osmesa w/ softpipe/llvmpipe is in src/gallium/targets/osmesa , but
>>> was never integrated into scons build (just autotools.)
>>>
>>> I'm OK adding support to build osmesa on Windows with llvmpipe/softpipe,
>>> but I don't think there's value in supporting the classic rasterizer --
>>> less code that we need to worry about MSVC portability.  I might give it
>>> a go when I find some time.
>>>
>> I see your concern and I'm not trying to force anything on you.
>>
>>>
>>> For the record, there was a point in time where I wanted SCons to build
>>> most of Mesa in the hope of replacing autotools, which is why scons
>>> build more than just Windows.  But it's a loosing battle.  Nowadays I'm
>>> more interested in reducing the SCons scope as much as possible, so
>>> there's less stuff for me and everybody else to maintain.
>>>
>>> (And if there's a build system that could really work across multiple
>>> platforms and make everybody happy, my bet would not be scons, but
>>> rather cmake.  But I doubt there will ever be agreement or time to take
>>> such enterprise anyway.)
>>>
>> Fwiw if I have to choose between scons and cmake I would go for the
>> latter. Yet considering the amount of work/time required, I'd assume
>> that fixing the autotools bugs would be the faster route. If you're ok
>> with the idea, feel free to submit bugs and I'll check them over.
> 
> I'm afraid that getting autotools to work with MSVC would be harder than
> writing a completely new build system from scratch.  MinGW's doable, but
> not MSVC. And we must support MSVC, as MinGW is OK for quick testing has
> too many drawbacks to be used for production drivers.
> 
Was under the impression that MSYS + the cccl wrapper handles the chaos.
Never tried it though so it might be completely broken. Just a note for
people who haven't heard of the latter [1] [2].

-Emil

[1] http://cccl.sourceforge.net/
[2] https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/build-aux/cccl