Am Sonntag, 29. September 2002 23:48 schrieb Felix K=FChling:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:37:36 +0100
> Keith Whitwell <keith@...> wrote:
> > Felix K=FChling wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:25:03 +0200
> > > Dieter N=FCtzel <Dieter.Nuetzel@...> wrote:
> > >>Is r100/r200 a completely different thing?
> > >>If not why not a patch against both?
> > >>Then the testing audience should be much "wider".
> > >
> > > Sure. As far as I could see the code is very similar. However, this=
> > > rmesa->do_irqs =3D (0 &&
> > > =09=09 rmesa->dri.drmMinor >=3D 6 &&
> > > =09=09 !getenv("R200_NO_IRQS") &&
> > > =09=09 rmesa->r200Screen->irq);
> > > looks like IRQs are turned off by default on R200. So my code would=
> > > be used. Is the reason for IRQs being disabled that the frame
> > > throttling is not implemented properly or are there lower level
> > > problems with IRQs?
> > No, this is a hangover from the bugs last week. It can be removed no=
> Ok, I just saw your commit. I'm working on it now. It will take a while=
> though. The code is ready but I want to compile it at least and I havn'=
> enabled compiling the r200 driver. Is there a faster way than doing a
> make world after changing config.cf?
Is "make Everything" enough?
But on my dual Athlon MP 1900+ a whole DRI CVS compilation takes ~9 min;-=
xc/xc> time nice +19 make -j3 World >& world.log
484.570u 64.300s 9:09.37 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 6244578pf+0w
That's why I'm offering my CPU time... Not every DRI developer has a SMP=20
system as I remember and so I think testing on SMP is needed.