On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Armin K. wrote: > On 06/14/2012 01:03 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > Since there is no sign of a Mesa 8.1 or later release at the > > moment, perhaps I should commit that patch for the radeon driver ? > > Sure, go ahead. Mesa 8.1 is still too far away (I've tried git checkout > and it is in good state for now). >
Will do, once I've formatted it properly and checked that it is still working (at the moment I'm still building in chroot - so much nicer to have a working firefox when I get a build issue in ... firefox). Makes a change from trying to reliably trigger a kernel problem <sigh/> > > And maybe expand the treatment of gallium drivers in MesaLib - I'm > > guessing that avoiding the r300 and r600 gallium drivers is there to > > avoid needing llvm ? > > > > ĸen > > Correct. I enabled all drivers by default once, but someone has spoken > on mailing lists and said how llvm is not required and it should not be > enabled by default. I recall doing that for my old r200, in the days before I understood that hardware acceleration was available :) I'll give some thought to listing alternatives in the Mesa build. Do people think that most of our users will want to use llvm for Mesa (i.e. have a default configure which is explained to need llvm, with options to avoid llvm) ? Or a default without llvm, and explanations in the options explaining why modern radeons need it ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
