[Mesa-maintainers] [Mesa-dev] Using --enable-opencl-icd by default and deprecating the toggle

[Francisco Jerez]

Aaron Watry <awatry at gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Currently nearly all the distributions I've seen* enable and use the ICD.
>> Only Gentoo does not use it, but manages the OpenCL.so conflicts via eselect.
>>
>> They have the ocl-icd library as a separate option, which makes me
>> wonder how that's supposed to work. After all, for it to work the
>> vendor package should:
>> a) provided a binary not called libOpenCL.so (it could be called like
>> that, but must be outside of ld's search path)
>> b) provide a $foo.icd file, listing the ICD file/path name
>>
>> Most likely I'm having a dull moment somewhere and things work just fine.
>>
>> Considering that the --enable-opencl-icd is almost always set, I think
>> we should change the default.
>> Deprecating and removing it (at a later stage) also a nice option,
>> since it will allow us to do some tidy-ups.
>
> I'm in favor of building an ICD by default. I would like to at least
> consider keeping the non-ICD option around as a configuration toggle
> for now, given that there's been times I've had to deal with
> bugs/issues in the ocl-icd library itself that could be ignored
> temporarily or more easily diagnosed by just building clover as
> libOpenCL.so directly...  That being said, if there's sufficient
> motivation or demand from others, I'd be ok with removing the non-ICD
> option at some point.
>
> I've been using ICD builds myself for what feels like forever, and
> can't really see much reason that anyone would want to do otherwise
> outside of actual clover development. There's just too many chances
> for drivers to conflict with each other if they're fighting over
> libOpenCL.so.
>

I've also found the stand-alone (non-ICD) build to be useful for
debugging and isolating ICD problems.  Don't have any objection against
changing the default to be ICD, even though that effectively introduces
a new dependency with the default build configuration, it's probably
what most people want.

> --Aaron
>
>>
>> What do you guys think? I'd love to hear people's thoughts about this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Emil
>>
>> *Fedora, Suse, Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, FreeBSD
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-dev mailing list
>> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-maintainers/attachments/20170929/d41915a3/attachment.sig>