Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nouveau NVC0 & RadeonSI Now Officially Expose OpenGL 4.3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nouveau NVC0 & RadeonSI Now Officially Expose OpenGL 4.3

    Phoronix: Nouveau NVC0 & RadeonSI Now Officially Expose OpenGL 4.3

    Their drivers have basically been at OpenGL 4.3 compliance for a few days now, but today the switch was finally made where the Nouveau NVC0 and RadeonSI Gallium3D drivers are officially advertising OpenGL 4.3 support...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...vau-OpenGL-4.3

  • #2
    Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
      Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
      LLVM releases currently happen only every six months... They add new features to AMDGPU concurrently with Mesa as they develop their open-source driver stack.
      Michael Larabel
      https://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
        Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
        LLVM point releases help with "slow" release cycle

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
          Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
          Because they need to do stuff in LLVM? It's not nonsense. You expect them to release a new LLVM version every time a driver needs to add or change something?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
            Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
            The technical reason is that RadeonSI basically uses mesa as a front end, they lower TGSI (out of gallium) into LLVM IR, and then the rest of their driver happens in LLVM. So if they need to add support for new hardware, or add features, or even fix bugs in their backend, that has to happen in an unreleased version of LLVM. As pointed out, bug fixes usually get backported to stable LLVM (AMD maintains the LLVM point releases for this very reason), but backporting features to stable releases is usually frowned upon (in most software projects, LLVM included). So if you want to use SI you're going to use LLVM from trunk.

            Comment


            • #7
              As you can read in the original mail https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/111638.html

              These two patches are needed:
              http://reviews.llvm.org/D18340
              http://reviews.llvm.org/D18559

              They may be backported to stable llvm, but I don't think this has happened so far.

              It would be really nice if they could somehow include llvm into the mesa git repository. Maybe as a git submodule. And then have a flag to either build mesa git with
              * either the system's llvm or
              * a known good llvm svn revision - but have the build system so that only the amdgpu backend of llvm is built (and maybe the clang parts needed for clover), so it doesn't take so long. Right now a full llvm build is something like 45 minutes on my CPU...
              Last edited by haagch; 27 May 2016, 06:55 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
                Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
                because they don't have time machine and can't change old llvm releases

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
                  Radeon need llvm 3.9? why? this non sense need to stop, why mesa devs are using unstable branch of llvm?
                  Isn't developement usually happening in non-stable branches anyway?
                  Or do you want stable branches/builds to not be stable anymore?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by haagch View Post
                    As you can read in the original mail https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/111638.html

                    These two patches are needed:
                    http://reviews.llvm.org/D18340
                    http://reviews.llvm.org/D18559

                    They may be backported to stable llvm, but I don't think this has happened so far.

                    It would be really nice if they could somehow include llvm into the mesa git repository. Maybe as a git submodule. And then have a flag to either build mesa git with
                    * either the system's llvm or
                    * a known good llvm svn revision - but have the build system so that only the amdgpu backend of llvm is built (and maybe the clang parts needed for clover), so it doesn't take so long. Right now a full llvm build is something like 45 minutes on my CPU...
                    But why would you need to import LLVM/Clang into mesa to do that? You can already specify the llvm prefix to use for building mesa, which means that you can already build mesa using either your system's LLVM (the default), or using a hand-picked install prefix where you've installed/built an LLVM checkout.

                    It's what I do right now to be able to build a 32-bit LLVM/Mesa on my system from the git/svn upstream repositories. You can either build/install the release builds of llvm/clang or you can pick any arbitrary revision.

                    And with regards to needing 3.9-svn of LLVM, that's just to get the compute shader support, I believe. Mesa currently supports at least LLVM 3.8 for building radeonsi, and there may still be support for 3.7... There was a discussion a few weeks ago about which version of LLVM should be the base for building radeonsi, and the conclusion was to at least support 1 released version at a minimum... cause no distro would accept having to build released mesa against a git snapshot of llvm.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X