From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: bug#35575: logo,Some graphical programs borked with Guix on Arch Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:53:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87v9mktw29.fsf@devup.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJIHD-00038t-QL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:54:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJIHC-0002cU-IX for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:54:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53471) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJIHC-0002cC-CY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:54:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jJIHC-0006TT-6Y for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:54:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Brendan Tildesley , 35575@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brendan Tildesley writes: > To follow up on this old bug, I believe the issue may come from here:=20 > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/master/src/compiler/glsl/= shader_cache.cpp#L144 > > Mesa calculates a sha1 based on some things they reason affect the=20 > output, but likely it is not truely a function of every parameter than=20 > can make a difference to the shader output. When we updated from llvm6=20 > to lvm7 I'm guessing it changed the shaders somehow, and the llvm=20 > version is not included in the hash. Since I have zero understanding=20 > mesa, I'm not capable of determining the best solution. One thought is=20 > that if we included the mesa /gnu/store path in the calculation, this=20 > would make the hash's truely unique for a given mesa version, but also=20 > cached shaders that /would/ work would be routinely discarded after an=20 > update (i assume?). Would this be sensible or completely break something= =20 > else? Should we just add the llvm version, or just start a mesa bug=20 > report asking for input? Is this still relevant? I haven't heard reports about this in a long time, nor experienced it (anymore) on my super-experimental systems that switch LLVM and Mesa versions all the time. So I think the issue might have been fixed upstream? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl6DWW8ACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPr09wgAq24R3EwyS9Uk3hYXZt1JFc72KQvWvl6pvPi8W/1u2WbsIqEk4iPkOLEN JnMxBCKOwSlSlkQcm0HcHltgTxUySZ2zCLzkfsDELr3xFfYd2y16GQsMrn9B/Acc Iu/eXNHXOQT0kp4Jqp5AuwNIOIj04puWNYP8npUA+et8u7Giu7m3ecD6PcqHioqU ywaEfDvTRXSlyjqJr7Y14FKJzSEQ4htzCrVIewuV3KcJr9HI22lzupsyILr1bYPC 3Rnf/7weNxJ/p9Ba+cu800O8T9vQpVuDPu1Wjx6tg9faRsDVmW59CkWX7JyCuDRe ToGr3iSvDGV2en5dS/qmnvirxvsEAQ== =Vnyc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--