Consistent with how D3DXFindShaderComment() allows looking up comments
by tag. This also makes it a little easier to move CTAB generation out
of d3dbc.c.
Sometimes SM1-3 shaders contain write masks that exceed the
signature element masks. That happens because SM1-3 shaders do not
have a concept of signature and signature masks, and OTOH aren't
always able to express any given write mask.
In VSIR we don't want to deal with I/O register masks exceeding the
corresponding signature element mask or usage mask, because, for
instance, for higher shader models it can complicate dealing with
DCL_INDEX_RANGE. In order to have uniform rules for all shader
models we normalise masks coming from SM1-3 shaders.
We don't do that normalisation when disassembling, in order to
preserve the expected output.
The previous names "not normalised" and "fully normalised" have meanings
which are likely to change with time. OTOH including a description of the
normalisation level in the enumerant seems excessive. Relating
normalisation levels to shader model versions might be a reasonable
compromise.
The combined sampler is created as a SAMPLER instead of a TEXTURE
because that fits all our current infrastructure. The only problem is
that in the CTAB it must appear as a Texture, so the new field
hlsl_type.is_combined_sampler is added.
Co-authored-by: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@codeweavers.com>
The goal is to make a requirement for VSIR that signature element
masks are always contiguous. The SPIR-V backend already implicitly
makes that assumption, since it just consider the LSB and popcount
of the mask.
For example, consider this HLSL pixel shader:
float4 main(float4 color : COLOR) : SV_Target
{
return float4(color.x, 10.0f, 11.0f, color.w);
}
Currently the parser describes the input signature element
corresponding to semantic COLOR as having mask .xw, which is
sensible. However, the SPIR-V parser will interpret that as
a mask starting at x and with popcount 2, and assuming it is
contiguous it will implicitly act as if it were .xy. This is
not correct, because the wrong component will be loaded from
the vertex stage.
