[Mesa-stable] [PATCH v2 2/2] meson: swr: do a second llvm search with extra modules for llvm >= 7

[Chuck Atkins]

I already edited the patch, just waiting on the Intel devs to consider the
SWR code changes that go with this.

- Chuck


On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:26 AM Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:

> Quoting Juan A. Suarez Romero (2018-10-01 01:56:25)
> > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 13:33 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Chuck Atkins (2018-09-24 13:24:29)
> > > > Hi Dylan,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     I think you could simplify this:
> > > >
> > > >     > +  if dep_llvm.found() and with_gallium_swr and
> dep_llvm.version
> > > >     ().version_compare('>= 7')
> > > >     > +    _llvm_2pass = true
> > > >     > +    llvm_modules += ['ipo', 'objcarcopts']
> > > >     > +  endif
> > > >     > +  if _llvm_2pass
> > > >     > +    dep_llvm = dependency(
> > > >     > +      'llvm',
> > > >     > +      version : _llvm_version,
> > > >     > +      modules : llvm_modules,
> > > >     > +      optional_modules : llvm_optional_modules,
> > > >     > +      required : _llvm_req,
> > > >     > +    )
> > > >     > +  endif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     if dep_llvm.found() and with_gallium_swr and dep_llvm.version
> > > >     ().version_compare('>= 7')
> > > >       llvm_modules += ['ipo', 'objcarcopts']
> > > >       dep_llvm = dependency(
> > > >         'llvm',
> > > >         version : _llvm_version,
> > > >         modules : llvm_modules,
> > > >         optional_modules : llvm_optional_modules,
> > > >         required : _llvm_req,
> > > >       )
> > > >     endif
> > > >     with_llvm = dep_llvm.found()
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could, and in fact, that exactly what I did initially.  But then I
> wanted to
> > > > explicitly seperate the second pass from the decision to do so
> making it easy
> > > > to allow other drivers to do something similar if needed in the same
> spot.
> > > >
> > > > - Chuck
> > >
> > > Okay, that's something I hadn't considered. It seems fine as is then.
> > >
> >
> > Dylan, is this "seems fine as it is" an implicit R+1? :)
> >
> >         J.A.
> >
>
> Yes, with a comment mentioning the upstream meson issue, this is:
> Reviewed-by: Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-stable/attachments/20181001/c60a186f/attachment.html>