Le 21/01/2017 à 16:55, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit : > On 21/01/17 15:40, Bruno Pagani wrote: >> Le 21/01/2017 à 16:20, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit : >> >>>> is there any downside in compiling with >>>> OpenCL 2.0 support, >>> Yes - on older (Ivybridge/Haswell - no emitUntypedReadA64Instruction) >>> hardware, a 2.0-enabled beignet won't work, at all. >> >> That’s what I’ve feared but after trying it here I haven’t encountered >> more issues than with a non-2.0-enabled beignet. > > Trying it on what hardware? There might be hardware (all of gen8 if > this assert(0) is the only failure point) where a 2.0 build doesn't > crash outright but also doesn't have working 2.0.
Haswell (HD4600). >> What would be the point of installing both [2.0 and non-2.0]? Just so >> that softwares not >> needing 2.0 don’t get hurt on performances? > > That, and users (of software with non-broken empty platform handling) > not having to think about which one they actually need. (I discovered > the existence of broken empty platform handling while considering > whether to create an opencl-icd-all package, which would depend on > beignet, mesa-opencl-icd and pocl.) OK, I see. Maybe less applicable on ArchLinux where I expect people to know or read about which one they need. >>> I at least need to decide quickly, as Debian freezes this week. >> But does that really applies to Debian? >> Because AFAIU, there is no llvm 3.9 in Debian Stretch: > > There is LLVM 3.9 in Debian Stretch (I already build beignet with it), > it just isn't the default (the one that gets the plain 'llvm' name): > https://packages.debian.org/stretch/llvm-3.9 Oh, OK. So the deadline issue is probably the toughest one, at least for you… Bruno
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Beignet mailing list Beignet@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
