On 16.03.2021 13:32, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 2021-03-03 15:38, Francois Gouget wrote:The output produced by i386 and amd64 (or any other, for that matter) builds of vkd3d-compiler should be identical; if it isn't, that would be considered a bug. For the record, I would be inclined to agree that the -dev package is not the appropriate place for vkd3d-compiler.Just asking. I don't actually know if the 32- and 64-bit vkd3d-compiler produce identical files or if one produces 32-bit files and the other 64-bit ones.
How would vkd3d-compiler be identical regardless of arch? I might misunderstand what you are saying tho.. I dont really know how dpkg compares binary files when they are installed, but if they are not binary equal, they are not "the same" from dpkg's pov. How would vkd3d-compiler compiled for amd64 be binary the same as i386? (The physical file that is).
I mean, a "hello world" example compiled as i386 or amd64 "are the same", but they are not checksum-comparable the same file.
Does that mean wine requires libvkd3d-shader for d3d11 with vulkan backend now?On the subject of Wine builds requiring both vkd3d-dev:amd64 and vkd3d-dev:i386, although somewhat tangential, note that Wine doesn't only use libvkd3d for its implementation of Direct3D 12, but also libvkd3d-shader for producing SPIR-V shaders for the Vulkan backend of its implementation of Direct3D 11 and earlier, where i386 applications are much more common.
Wine-dev compiled without vkd3d (as the case is for Debian10 ref. https://build.opensuse.org/build/Emulators:Wine:Debian/Debian_10/x86_64/wine-devel/_log ) does not say anything about d3d11 vulkan backend not being supported? Should there be a note of that incase configure is missing/too old libvkd3d?
Sveinar