[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 4/6] configure.ac: Set and use HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM define

[Tobias Droste]

Am Montag, 23. Januar 2017, 11:53:18 CET schrieb Jose Fonseca:
> On 20/01/17 02:48, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On 19 January 2017 at 19:26, Tobias Droste <tdroste at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2017, 18:45:04 CET schrieb Emil Velikov:
> >>> On 18 January 2017 at 18:12, Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> In order to untangle things we want to have a distinction between the
> >>>>>> gallium (gallivm afaict) and other users - RADV presently.
> >>>>>> So how about we update the RADV instances and ensure that the we set
> >>>>>> the HAVE_{RADV,}_LLVM lot appropriately. Latter will be picky but
> >>>>>> overall things should work w/o annoyances that HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM
> >>>>>> brings ?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I honestly don't even understand why we'd want to build parts of the
> >>>> tree
> >>>> with LLVM while hiding LLVM from other components.  We can't we just
> >>>> build
> >>>> everything with LLVM and avoid this combinatorial explosion of wierd
> >>>> options that are nothing more than yet another way the build can
> >>>> break!!?
> >>> 
> >>> Sadly the combinatoric explosion has been there for a while. Based on
> >>> how well my previous attempts to resolve similar issues (see the
> >>> "platforms" topic) I doubt we'll even get to fix that.
> >>> 
> >>>> But if a separate option is truly necessary, have the newcomer pick a
> >>>> different name, or something.
> >>> 
> >>> That's pretty much what I suggested above. Tobias can you please give it
> >>> a
> >>> try ?
> >> 
> >> I would rather "fix" the other build systems. (As in just define
> >> HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM if HAVE_LLVM is defined).
> >> 
> >> I think there is still a misunderstanding on Joses side on what this
> >> really
> >> means. No file in gallivm or llvmpipe will be touched. It's really just
> >> auxilliary/draw and there it's exactly 8 lines that will change.
> >> 
> >> That's it.
> >> 
> >> I really fail to see how this will break everything that is being worked
> >> on
> >> and cause merge conflicts everywhere.
> >> 
> >> If you still want the other way, I can do that to, but this will of
> >> course
> >> need the same fix in the other build system or we have the same situation
> >> we have now, but with other drivers.
> > 
> > Afaict one point is that the use of HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM vs HAVE_LLVM is
> > too subtle. Let's not forget that barring the WIP(?) branches, VMWare
> > has closed source components. Guess how much fun it will be as
> > suddenly things fail to build/work properly as they re-sync the code
> > base. No idea how likely the latter is, but considering Jose (and a
> > few other VMWare guys) wrote sizeable hunk of that code (and Mesa as a
> > whole) I'd go with his instinct.
> > 
> > Emil
> 
> The HAVE_LLVM->HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM rename is indeed not as invasive as I
> thought.
> 
> But I still don't understand why HAVE_LLVM->HAVE_GALLIUM_LLVM is
> necessary in draw and not on gallivm/llvmpipe.
> 
> People want to build draw with LLVM support, but without
> gallivm/llvmpipe? That's impossible.
> 
> Or is this because the draw files are the only .c files that are
> compiled even when HAVE_LLVM is undefined, so these are the only ones
> that get to receive the renaming treatment?  That's crazy confusing.
> There's no away I can accept that.
> 

The draw files are used by softpipe (and maybe other gallium drivers, haven't 
checked that) and there HAVE_LLVM should not be defined. If it's not, 
everything is fine. But with new non gallium drivers using LLVM and causing 
HAVE_LLVM to bedefined, softpipe is broken in some cases. See below.

> 
> Let me make this crystal clear to avoid making this discussion even more
> protracted: I will not accept any HAVE_LLVM change in
> draw/gallivm/llvmpipe .C/.H source code.  Period.
> 

I'm _not_ changing gallivm and llvmpipe. Draw is not only used by llvmpipe and 
I still think I have very good arguments for the change. See again below.

I understand, I'm the unknown new guy and you did a lot of work in this code. 
But I'm not getting paid for this and I don't have to do this. I want to help, 
but I also want to understand why I can't do something. With reasons other 
than "I say so, and I don't want to hear any reasons against it". I hope you 
understand that. 

> 
> HAVE_LLVM used to mean, "whole Mesa being built with LLVM".  Now people
> want to build something (no idea what yet to be honest) with LLVM, but
> not build draw/gallivm/llvmpipe.
> 
> If you want to build some other component with LLVM but not
> draw/gallivm/llvmpipe, then add a new HAVE_LLVM_FOR_FOOBAR define and
> use it where you need it.

The real problem is softpipe. Softpipe uses draw but (obviously) can't use 
LLVM.

Right now one could build radv (uses LLVM) and pass --disable-gallium-llvm to 
the build system to get softpipe built.

But due to radv "HAVE_LLVM" (which is used as a version check everywhere 
else!) is defined and the draw code gets build using gallivm (since HAVE_LLVM 
is defined). So the resulting softpipe will actually use LLVM even though you 
deselected LLVM for gallium.

That's how it is right now!

The draw code is the only code that has optional LLVM support and also the 
only code that uses HAVE_LLVM without any version check just to see if it 
should use LLVM or not. That's why this is the obvious and easy to change 
component. 

I'm open for a rename. USE_LLVM_FOR_DRAW?
I would still argue that this is the right place to do the change!

But having said all that:
If we're all okay to disallow a mixed LLVM/no-LLVM build, I'm fine with that 
too. In that case there's no renaming to be done. 
Right now that sould only break configurations where radv is somehow involved 
as all the other LLVM users are gallium drivers as far as I can tell.

Emil? :-)

> 
> 
> And honestly, I think people should reconsider enabling building parts
> with Mesa with LLVM and others without it.  It sounds an awful idea that
> will cause nothing more than grief.  But that's not for me to decide.
> 
> 
> Jose