Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:43:09 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 217771] lang/beignet: update to 1.3.1 Message-ID: <bug-217771-7141-PLkgWB7Dey@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-217771-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-217771-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217771 --- Comment #10 from Matthew Rezny <rezny@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Jan Beich (mail not working) from comment #9) >libdrm was updated just ~2 months ago. Once 2017Q2 is branched users may f= ind OpenCL 2.0 is auto-disabled during build. Partial upgrades were never s= upported, so this can be ignored. Right, people on a quarterly branch with old libdrm won't have the new beig= net with OCL2, people on head will get both new libdrm and new beignet, and any= one who cares about something like OpenCL is not on quarterly. >Removing OPENCL20 option makes 1.2 vs. 2.0 troubleshooting harder. Neither= beignet port exposes debugging support (vendor optimization gets in the wa= y) nor ports framework provides packages with debugging symbols to help dis= tinguish crash fingerprints from already reported. Wouldn't two variants, one with 2.0 support and one without, make that exact issue worse than having a single build would? I must be missing something, = it was my impression that the single build was desirable. >Not necessarily. GCC switched from C89 to C11 since 5.0 and from C++98 to = C++14 since 6.0. Clang switched from C99 to C11 in 3.6 but as of 4.0 is sti= ll stuck with C++98. Ah, good to know, I had not been keeping up on the changes in GCC, and still bumping into the old default since the default ports gcc is still 4.9 >memalign and aligned_alloc don't have such a restriction. Upstream already= uses posix_memalign in other places, so I'm giving up. When pushing files/= upstream some __FreeBSD__ checks would need to be dropped to avoid churn f= or other BSDs. I did not mean to cause contention. Using posix_memalign looked to be the m= ore portable solution is all, and if that is not the case I do welcome to be corrected as that entails an expansion of knowledge. It sounds like you had= a reason I didn't fully grasp. >Firefox and Chromium on X11 platforms preserve tabs just fine both via cli= pboard or primary selection. This falls into the category of things that didn't work reliably and thus a= re no longer tried. Perhaps it depends on the site from which it's copied, some sites might be converting tabs to spaces before it gets to the browser.=20 >> I had previously been advised to use makepatch when adding and changing >> patches. Is there a more strict set of criteria for when it is appropria= te than >> I am aware of? >"make makepatch" (like "make makeplist") output isn't supposed to be used = as is. It can accidentally merge separate patch files, incorporate sed(1) u= sage, etc. Porter's Handbook describes noise mainly in relation to "non-fun= ctional whitespace changes", so I maybe wrong. I am aware the output needs to be checked and quite used to doing the dance with makepatch wherein I copy back all those that were touched in post-patc= h. Of course I'm not perfect, I have accidentally committed sed cruft after regenerating a set of patches so many times I blinded myself to that part. I have briefly mulled over the idea of another target for this purpose, e.g. = make cleanpatch. I assume the reason to regularly regenerate patches is to ease fixing hunks that don't automatically apply after a port update. If the line numbers have been drifting for a long time and the context is insufficient, it can be difficult to be sure where to apply that hunk. >> What is inconsistent about the sorting? >> lib/beignet/b* < lib/beignet/l* >See where lib/beignet/beignet.pch is already placed, move *_20.* files the= re as well. >lib/beignet/b* < lib/beignet/i* < lib/beignet/l* Doh! I should have noticed that from your diff. I must have been thinking of directory first sorting or mentally rewriting lib/beignet/include/ to include/beignet/ (as it probably should be) when I inserted those. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-217771-7141-PLkgWB7Dey>