On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> On 10.04.2010 17:10, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Keith Whitwell
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roland Scheidegger
>>> wrote:
On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10
On 10.04.2010 17:10, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Keith Whitwell
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roland Scheidegger
>> wrote:
>>> On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
wrote:
> Hmm, not sure w
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Keith Whitwell
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roland Scheidegger
> wrote:
>> On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
>>> wrote:
Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any tho
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
>> The conversion to pipe_resource seems to be done by com
On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
> wrote:
>> Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
> The conversion to pipe_resource seems to be done by components. Maybe a new
> branch that reorganize (git rebase -i) the
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
wrote:
> Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
The conversion to pipe_resource seems to be done by components. Maybe a new
branch that reorganize (git rebase -i) the commits in gallium-resources and
merge the new
On 10.04.2010 14:00, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
I'm no big fan of squash merge but the history of the normal merge won't
be nice neither. Tough call, though I'd prefer a normal merge.
Roland
-
Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
Keith
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune appli
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Keith Whitwell
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Keith Whitwell
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Keith Whitwell wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 03:43 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Keith Whitwell
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 03:43 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:20 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On T
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 03:43 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:20 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Keith Whitwell
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> On 09.04.2010 17:29, STEVE555 wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've git branched and got the latest commits from the
>> gallium-resources branch and also the latest commits from git master.
>>
>> I did a gmake -B realclean from a prevous co
Dear Roland,
I like to thank you very much for the fixes.I have
compiled from commit 927cec79cedb457efa9e6f335727cfcb8e4908e2 on the
gallium-resources branch and that compiles fine now.
I also did a git merge of my copy of mesa master (from commit
75b8c4a8f869f63991c774caa7e1cec
On 09.04.2010 17:29, STEVE555 wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've git branched and got the latest commits from the
> gallium-resources branch and also the latest commits from git master.
>
> I did a gmake -B realclean from a prevous compile on my copy of git
> master,and did a git checkout gallium-re
Hi all,
I've git branched and got the latest commits from the
gallium-resources branch and also the latest commits from git master.
I did a gmake -B realclean from a prevous compile on my copy of git
master,and did a git checkout gallium-resources to switch to that
branch,and did a ./aut
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 03:43 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:20 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Keith Whitwell
> > wrote:
> >
> > OK, it seems like quite a few cases had migrated to the new
> >
> > buffer_map_ra
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:20 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Keith Whitwell
> wrote:
>
> OK, it seems like quite a few cases had migrated to the new
>
> buffer_map_range() behaviour. I've looked at all I can find
> and moved
>
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> OK, it seems like quite a few cases had migrated to the new
> buffer_map_range() behaviour. I've looked at all I can find and moved
> them back to the old behaviour.
>
> glean is passing now on softpipe.
>
There's now an assertion failure
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 18:58 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Keith Whitwell
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 03:28 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:23 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > There's something fishy in u
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 03:28 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:23 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > There's something fishy in u_upload_mgr, could you please review the
> > > first two patches here?
> > > http://cgit.fre
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 03:28 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:23 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > There's something fishy in u_upload_mgr, could you please review the
> > first two patches here?
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mareko/mesa/log/?h=gallium-resources
> >
> > With t
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:23 -0700, Marek Olšák wrote:
> There's something fishy in u_upload_mgr, could you please review the
> first two patches here?
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mareko/mesa/log/?h=gallium-resources
>
> With this, r300g works again.
Hmm, I think the second of the patches (flus
There's something fishy in u_upload_mgr, could you please review the first
two patches here?
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mareko/mesa/log/?h=gallium-resources
With this, r300g works again.
-Marek
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> I'm planning on merging the gallium-res
On 02.04.2010 17:18, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> How about merging gallium-buffer-usage-cleanup as well, which is based
> on gallium-resources?
> Unless, it changed recently, the gallium-resources branch left a mix
> of old PIPE_BUFFER_USAGE_* and new PIPE_TRANSFER_* flags.
>
> It would nice to convert
How about merging gallium-buffer-usage-cleanup as well, which is based
on gallium-resources?
Unless, it changed recently, the gallium-resources branch left a mix
of old PIPE_BUFFER_USAGE_* and new PIPE_TRANSFER_* flags.
It would nice to convert drivers having both branches, so that it is done once
25 matches
Mail list logo
