Re: talloc (Was: Merge criteria for glsl2 branch)
Eric Anholt <eric <at> anholt.net>
2010-08-01 17:19:50 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:32:57 +0100, José Fonseca <jfonseca <at> vmware.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 18:53 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > As everyone knows, a group of us at Intel have been rewriting Mesa's
> > GLSL compiler. The work started out-of-tree as a stand alone compiler.
> > We moved all of our work to the glsl2 branch in the Mesa tree as soon
> > as we had some actual code being generated. This was about month ago.
> > Since that time we have implemented quite a bit more code generation and
> > a complete linker. The compiler is not done, but it gets closer every day.
> > I think now is the time to start discussing merge criteria. It is well
> > known that the Intel graphics team favors quarterly releases. In order
> > to align with other people's release schedules, we'd really like to have
> > the new compiler in a Mesa release at the end of Q3 (end of September /
> > beginning of October). That's just over two months from now. In order
> > to have a credible release, the compiler needs to be merged to master
> > before then. A reasonable estimate puts the end of August as the latest
> > possible merge time. Given how far the compiler has come in the last
> > month, I have a lot of faith in being able to hit that target.
> > We have developed our own set of merge requirements, and these are
> > listed below. Since this is such a large subsystem, we want to solicit
> > input from the other stakeholders.
> > * No piglit regressions, except draw_buffers-05.vert, compared to
> > master in swrast, i965, or i915.
> > * Any failing tests do not crash (segfault, assertion failure, etc.).
> > draw_buffers-05.vert is specifically excluded because I'm not sure the