[Mesa-stable] [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] [RFC] gallivm: Use new LLVM fast-math-flags API
maraeo at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 16:35:15 UTC 2018
I can test piglit+CTS+deqp on the GPU that I have. (currently Polaris12)
On Mar 7, 2018 10:53 AM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 March 2018 at 15:13, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 March 2018 at 15:40, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>> On 28 February 2018 at 15:25, Alex Smith <asmith at feralinteractive.com>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> Could this (commit 5d61fa4e68b7eb6d481a37efdbb35fdce675a6ad on
> master) be
> >>>> backported to the 17.3 branch to allow it to build with LLVM 6?
> >>> Normally we don't aim to support LLVM versions released after the .0
> >>> Mesa release is out.
> >>> Not that we don't want to - there is simply not enough testing
> >>> Sometimes picking the odd build fix is enough, but not always.
> >>> As a matter of fact, the only feedback for the AMD drivers status
> >>> (brokenness) is the LunarG testing rig.
> >>> Michel, usually you are usually more realistic/conservative on with
> >>> this kind of changes.
> >> Are you saying that I'm less realistic? :)
> > You're right - my wording was bad. I should have only said conservative.
> > I would love to see agreement within the AMD team - one way or another.
> > If the decision is to go with these kind of changes, testing will also
> > be appreciated.
> > Be that independent individuals, teams, other. Let me ask if the
> > Lunarg team can add LLVM version to the test matrix.
> Have some good news - the Lunarg team will add LLVM 6.0 in the list.
> So as soon as we get that + there's no glaring regressions I think
> we'll be in decent shape.
> For anyone wondering why I tend towards the conservative side:
> - making it build, hence having partial LLVM X support is not enough
> The 'partial' word will be missed and you'll get plenty of unhappy
> users as regressions happen
> - missing a wide/popular test base
> The odd report of game X working fine is _greatly_ appreciated, yet
> quite limited
> - test results are not [easily] accessible by many people
> We want something to refer to as we decide to allow (or forbid) LLVM X
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mesa-stable