On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:28:22AM +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote: >> >> >> On 21/03/17 06:39, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > On 20 March 2017 at 18:30, Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > Seems like we ended up all over the place, so let me try afresh. >> > > > >> > > > Above all: >> > > > - Saying "I don't care" about your users is arrogant - let us _not_ >> > > > do that, please ? >> > > >> > > Let's be honest, the OpenBSD is subjecting itself to some pretty >> > > arbitrary restrictions caused including Mesa in its core: 10+ year old >> > > GCC, >> > IIRC Brian was using old MinGW GCC, which was one of the blockers - it >> > wasn't OpenBSD to blame here ;-) >> >> Sorry Emil I probably wasn't clear in our discussion. I sent out patches to >> switch to GCC 4.8 last Sept (I believe this was needed by RHEL6) [1]. >> >> Brain jumped in and said "I'm still using the MinGW gcc 4.6 compiler. I'd >> rather not go through the upgrade hassle if I don't have to." >> >> Followed by Jose "We're internally building and shipping Mesa compiled with >> GCC 4.4 (more specifically 4.4.3). >> >> It's fine if you require GCC 4.8 on automake, but please leave support >> for GCC 4.4.x in SCons." >> >> By this point I got bored and moved on. But OpenBSDs GCC is a fork with >> various features backported, from what I understand Mesa would not build on >> a real GCC 4.2 release and we should not be using it as a min version. IMO >> if OpenBSD want to maintain a GCC fork they can handle a patch to downgrade >> the min GCC version. >> >> I believe Jonathan would like us to stick with 4.2 as min but is prepared to >> deal with it if we move on. > > I would like to see Mesa test features it uses in configure rather than > arbitary versions that are what a certain linux distribution ships with. > The zlib change for instance didn't reference any specific problems with > older versions or interfaces required from newer versions. How can we reasonably do that? In the context of the patch you inlined -- what would make us believe designated initializers aren't available in some version of GCC and we should test for it? They're just a C99 feature AFAIK. And what would we do if we check and they're not available? Presumably you're not advocating for #ifdef'ing and having two pieces of the same code. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
