[Mesa-stable] [Mesa-dev] nesa-10.4.4: gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp:503:38: error: no viable conversion from 'ShaderMemoryManager *' to 'std::unique_ptr<RTDyldMemoryManager>'

Thu Mar 12 11:35:04 PDT 2015

On 12/03/15 18:07, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 March 2015 at 18:07, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com> wrote:
>>> Am 04.03.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
>>>> On 04/03/15 02:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>> On 27 February 2015 at 23:28, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Emil Velikov
>>>>>> <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/15 21:44, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was building mesa v10.4.4 with my llvm-toolchain v3.6.0rc2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My build breaks like this...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please cherry-pick...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit ef7e0b39a24966526b102643523feac765771842
>>>>>>>> "gallivm: Update for RTDyldMemoryManager becoming an unique_ptr."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ..for mesa 10.4 Git branch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Sedat,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Picking a fix in a stable branch against a non-final release sounds
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> a no-go in our books. As the official llvm 3.6 rolls out we'll pick
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> fix for the stable branches - until then I would recommend (a) applying
>>>>>>> it locally or (b) using mesa from the 10.5 or master branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just FYI...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.6 Release (see [1]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please pick this patch for-10.4, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As promised, mesa 10.4.6 will feature this.
>>>>
>>>> But is cross-porting this patch enough?
>>>>
>>>> As I said when this first issue was raised fixing the build with LLVM
>>>> 3.6 is just half of the problem.  It must also _run_ correctly.  And
>>>> building correctly doesn't necessarily means it will run correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is, unless somebody actually ensures that all LLVM 3.6 related
>>>> fixes have been crossported and that things run correctly, it is
>>>> misleading to enable the build of Mesa 10.4.6 with LLVM 3.6.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about radeon drivers, but at least from llvmpipe POV I
>>>> simply don't have the time to do this (go through every LLVM 3.6 related
>>>> patch, ensure they are all in 10.4.6, and test).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I quickly went through the diffs between 10.4 branch, and found one such
>>>> commit is missing:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cgit.freedesktop.org_mesa_mesa_commit_-3Fid-3D74f505fa73eda0c9b5b1984bebb44cedac8e8794&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=Sil2uIufz_rVBrlIPFDCUMC6Wcsupo40k41-Sz85i9k&e=
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.freedesktop.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D85467&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=abTgehf51Ko6ywCLleOeHsxY6igdNHXG4W8PHws8MQU&e=
>>>>
>>>> But there might be more, and I don't know if crossporting this is safe
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore my stance for is that building Mesa stable releases with LLVM
>>>> releases after the Mesa release was branched is still unsupported.  If
>>>> people want to do so, they will do at their own peril. And any incoming
>>>> bugs will be "unsupported, use Mesa.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If having a Mesa release capable of building LLVM 3.6 is so important, I
>>>> think it might be easier/safer to just make a new release from a recent
>>>> enough commit, than trying to backport it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite right, the above commit is a must if you want to build
>>> with llvm 3.6. I am quite sure crossport should be safe (it missed the
>>> branch point of 10.4 just narrowly), and I don't think there's any other
>>> patches missing, but no guarantees...
>>> I think it is sort of unfortunate that the latest mesa release wouldn't
>>> run with the latest llvm release, but the fact remains that without
>>> testing this sounds all a bit risky...
>>>
>> Thanks for the input gents.
>>
>> So the input so far we've got is that no-one is testing llvm 3.6 with
>> mesa 10.4. I love to give it a spin, yet Archlinux doesn't have llvm
>> 3.6 . There is also the double-free bug mentioned in
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.freedesktop.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D89387&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=ce5nAs88nlMkISXKFeoBDzTSKeR3Q9I6sV7AP9COtwQ&e=
>>
>> All that said, Sedat I will revert the commit and release 10.4.6
>> without it. On the positive side, mesa 10.5.0 is coming out later on
>> today, which should work like a charm with llvm 3.6.
>>
>
> As said I switched to mesa v10.5.0.
>
> Just FYI...
>
> Mesa Bug #89387 was fixed by [1]...
>
> commit 70dc8a9930f561d7ce6db7e58b5bc9b4d940e37b
> "gallivm: Prevent double delete on LLVM 3.6"
>
> - Sedat -
>
> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cgit.freedesktop.org_mesa_mesa_patch_-3Fid-3D70dc8a9930f561d7ce6db7e58b5bc9b4d940e37b&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=G9Y99Ju79y8r7f-SEKkY3Fl0dpHU2jXKR3iDRmr7Rvs&e=
>
On 12/03/15 18:07, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 March 2015 at 18:07, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com> wrote:
>>> Am 04.03.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
>>>> On 04/03/15 02:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>> On 27 February 2015 at 23:28, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Emil Velikov
>>>>>> <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/15 21:44, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was building mesa v10.4.4 with my llvm-toolchain v3.6.0rc2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My build breaks like this...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please cherry-pick...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit ef7e0b39a24966526b102643523feac765771842
>>>>>>>> "gallivm: Update for RTDyldMemoryManager becoming an unique_ptr."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ..for mesa 10.4 Git branch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Sedat,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Picking a fix in a stable branch against a non-final release sounds
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> a no-go in our books. As the official llvm 3.6 rolls out we'll pick
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> fix for the stable branches - until then I would recommend (a) applying
>>>>>>> it locally or (b) using mesa from the 10.5 or master branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just FYI...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.6 Release (see [1]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please pick this patch for-10.4, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As promised, mesa 10.4.6 will feature this.
>>>>
>>>> But is cross-porting this patch enough?
>>>>
>>>> As I said when this first issue was raised fixing the build with LLVM
>>>> 3.6 is just half of the problem.  It must also _run_ correctly.  And
>>>> building correctly doesn't necessarily means it will run correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is, unless somebody actually ensures that all LLVM 3.6 related
>>>> fixes have been crossported and that things run correctly, it is
>>>> misleading to enable the build of Mesa 10.4.6 with LLVM 3.6.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about radeon drivers, but at least from llvmpipe POV I
>>>> simply don't have the time to do this (go through every LLVM 3.6 related
>>>> patch, ensure they are all in 10.4.6, and test).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I quickly went through the diffs between 10.4 branch, and found one such
>>>> commit is missing:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cgit.freedesktop.org_mesa_mesa_commit_-3Fid-3D74f505fa73eda0c9b5b1984bebb44cedac8e8794&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=Sil2uIufz_rVBrlIPFDCUMC6Wcsupo40k41-Sz85i9k&e=
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.freedesktop.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D85467&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=abTgehf51Ko6ywCLleOeHsxY6igdNHXG4W8PHws8MQU&e=
>>>>
>>>> But there might be more, and I don't know if crossporting this is safe
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore my stance for is that building Mesa stable releases with LLVM
>>>> releases after the Mesa release was branched is still unsupported.  If
>>>> people want to do so, they will do at their own peril. And any incoming
>>>> bugs will be "unsupported, use Mesa.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If having a Mesa release capable of building LLVM 3.6 is so important, I
>>>> think it might be easier/safer to just make a new release from a recent
>>>> enough commit, than trying to backport it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite right, the above commit is a must if you want to build
>>> with llvm 3.6. I am quite sure crossport should be safe (it missed the
>>> branch point of 10.4 just narrowly), and I don't think there's any other
>>> patches missing, but no guarantees...
>>> I think it is sort of unfortunate that the latest mesa release wouldn't
>>> run with the latest llvm release, but the fact remains that without
>>> testing this sounds all a bit risky...
>>>
>> Thanks for the input gents.
>>
>> So the input so far we've got is that no-one is testing llvm 3.6 with
>> mesa 10.4. I love to give it a spin, yet Archlinux doesn't have llvm
>> 3.6 . There is also the double-free bug mentioned in
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.freedesktop.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D89387&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=ce5nAs88nlMkISXKFeoBDzTSKeR3Q9I6sV7AP9COtwQ&e=
>>
>> All that said, Sedat I will revert the commit and release 10.4.6
>> without it. On the positive side, mesa 10.5.0 is coming out later on
>> today, which should work like a charm with llvm 3.6.
>>
>
> As said I switched to mesa v10.5.0.
>
> Just FYI...
>
> Mesa Bug #89387 was fixed by [1]...
>
> commit 70dc8a9930f561d7ce6db7e58b5bc9b4d940e37b
> "gallivm: Prevent double delete on LLVM 3.6"
>
> - Sedat -
>
> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cgit.freedesktop.org_mesa_mesa_patch_-3Fid-3D70dc8a9930f561d7ce6db7e58b5bc9b4d940e37b&d=AwIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=mwtTmgdaduzVfVZMIvrzUZfNVLzbS9ds0ks0JUM84a8&s=G9Y99Ju79y8r7f-SEKkY3Fl0dpHU2jXKR3iDRmr7Rvs&e=
>

Yes, it's safe to crossport this to v10.5.0.  I've should add the CC: field.

Jose