On Mon Sep 4 13:24:07 2023 +0000, Henri Verbeet wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to have 32-bit runs. Incidentally, I'm much less convinced about the value of llvmpipe/lavapipe runs. It could have been a valuable baseline that everyone can have access to without requiring specific hardware, in the same way that swrast and softpipe used to be for OpenGL, but it's not. That's largely a consequence of its target being desktop applications like GNOME 3, Firefox, Chrome, and so on, and conformance largely being a non-goal. I'm willing to humour Giovanni to see if we can make the tests pass on llvmpipe and provide something of value there, but if there are concerns about the number of configurations we're running, I'd much rather have radv-32 than llvmpipe-*.
I'm not exactly sure of the differences in terms of conformance management between llvmpipe and swrast or softpipe, but at least some work is being done towards llvmpipe Vulkan conformance, and [at least some results were achieved](https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products#submission_...). For the moment I don't know whether the failing tests are failing due to our fault or to llvmpipe's (well, at least for !289 it seems that the fault is indeed on us, but there are many other failures). Hopefully eventually I'll find some time to investigate.