On Fri, 2019-04-05 at 17:35 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 14:01, Anuj Mittal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...nge-type-of-block-pointer-for-OpenCL.patch | 152 +++ > > ...CL-pass-to-handle-new-blocks-represn.patch | 1116 > > +++++++++++++++++ > > ...001-dont-export-targets-for-binaries.patch | 66 + > > .../files/0001-point-to-correct-clang.patch | 59 + > > ...-LLVM-IR-generated-for-OpenCL-blocks.patch | 290 +++++ > > ...3-OpenCL-Fix-assertion-due-to-blocks.patch | 57 + > > .../clang/llvm-project-source.bbappend | 16 + > > Where do these patches come from? They're missing upstream-status > and > signed-off-by. Are they sufficiently generic that we can apply them > to meta-clang instead of clang changing depending on whether > meta-intel is being used? >
Four of these are actually the patches that this specific project applies at build time [1]. So I took out the patches and added them here. They have been merged upstream so we probably won't need these for 9.0 release. They are generic but are essentially backports and don't strictly look like bug fixes to me. What do you think? I will add the Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by. Thanks, Anuj [1] https://github.com/intel/opencl-clang/tree/ocl-open-80/patches -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel
