[Mesa-dev] [PATCHv2 3/4] configure.ac: Separate HAVE_LLVM defines for gallium and radv

[Emil Velikov]

On 2 February 2017 at 00:36, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 10:06, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2 February 2017 at 00:00, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2 February 2017 at 09:58, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1 February 2017 at 22:19, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just make radv depend on enable-gallium-llvm.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't want to make the #defines into the spaghetti this introduces.
>>>>>
>>>> Not a huge fan of it either.
>>>>
>>>> We need these for 17.0 and flipping things in a feature freeze period
>>>> is iffy. For 17.1.x we'll remove this and a lot more nasty code by
>>>> superseding --enable-gallium-llvm in favour of --enable-llvm.
>>>
>>> Why do we need it, just make radv not build if enable-gallium-llvm
>>> isn't specified.
>>>
>> Because that's the way things worked since day 1 - maybe it was an
>> oversight, maybe a bug, other.
>> All I'm asking is for a week or so of patience after which this messy
>> code, plus more, will be gone. Please ?
>
> It's going to make backporting stable fixes to 17.0 more error prone,
> lots more error prone
I can put some beers on the line that if there's anything error prone
in the backports it won't related to any of these ;-)

Atm _every_ mesa branch has the LLVM bits broken in one way or
another. Pulling --enable-gallium-llvm won't magically fix things.
I've already addressed 'everything' and although trivial the on their
own, the patches depend on these.
Not to mention I've been spinning like crazy nearly a dozen different
build combinations.

> and I don't want that. Anything that touches
> HAVE_LLVM vs MESA_HAVE_LLVM in the codebase, Not nice.
>
Agreed it's _not_ pretty. In the [very unlikely] case of this causing
issues, I'll be the person looking into it ;-)

> Who care what used to work, just make the reality sane for release.
>
"Who care what used to work" is not nice either :-\

-Emil