The primary goal here is to move compilation profile type and version
check outside of a parsing stage. Default values for parameters were
never subjected to this fixup, and it does look tpf-specific, so moving
it where it belongs.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov@codeweavers.com>
Our ASM dumper currently hides or interprets some register indices
in order to match users expectations. This can be inconvenient for
developers, though, because it makes it harder to understand what's
really going on in the VSIR code when reading logs. With this change
the whole index structure is dumped.
SPIR-V images have a "depth" parameter that, as far as I understand
(the spec doesn't look terribly clear in that regard), specifies
whether the image can be used for depth-comparison operations.
In TPF (and therefore in VSIR) the same information is specified
on the sampler type instead of on the image type. This puts us in
a hard spot, because in principle an image can be used with
many different samplers, and the mapping might even be unknown
at compilation time, so it's not clear how we should define our
images.
We currently have some algorithms to deal with that, but they are
incomplete and lead to SPIR-V validation errors like:
Expected Image to have the same type as Result Type Image
%63 = OpSampledImage %62 %59 %61
The problem here is that the image has a non-depth type, but is
being sampled as a depth image. This check was added recently to
SPIRV-Tools, so we became aware of the problem.
As I said, it's not easy in general to decide whether an image is
going to be sampled with depth-comparison operators or not.
Fortunately the SPIR-V spec allow to mark the depth parameter as
unknown (using value 2), so until we come up with something better
we use that for all images to please the validator and avoid
giving misleading hints to the driver.
Numeric types are used very frequently, and doing a tree search
each time one is needed tends to waste a lot of time.
I ran the compilation of ~1000 DXBC-TPF shaders randomly taken from
my collection and measured the performance using callgrind and the
kcachegrind "cycle count" estimation.
BEFORE:
* 1,764,035,136 cycles
* 1,767,948,767 cycles
* 1,773,927,734 cycles
AFTER:
* 1,472,384,755 cycles
* 1,469,506,188 cycles
* 1,470,191,425 cycles
So callgrind would estimate a 16% improvement at least.
