This preempts us from replacing a swizzle incorrectly, as in the
following example:
1: A.x = 1.0
2: A
3: A.x = 2.0
4: @2.x
were @4 ends up being 2.0 instead of 1.0, because that's the value stored in
A.x at time 4, and we should be querying it at time 2.
This also helps us to avoid replacing a swizzle with itself in copy-prop
which can result in infinite loops, as with the included tests this commit.
Consider the following sequence of instructions:
1 : A
2 : B = @1
3 : B
4 : A = @3
5 : @1.x
Current copy-prop would replace 5 so it points to @3 now:
1 : A
2 : B = @1
3 : B
4 : A = @3
5 : @3.x
But in the next iteration it would make it point back to @1, keeping it
spinning infinitively.
The solution is to index the instructions and don't replace the swizzle
if the new load happens after the current load.
Instead of only storing the value that each variable's component has at
the moment of the instruction currently handled by copy-prop, we store
the trace of all the historic values with their timestamps, i.e. the
instruction index on which the value was stored.
This would allow us to query the value that the variable had at the time
of execution of previous instructions.
