mirror of
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/vkd3d.git
synced 2025-01-28 13:05:02 -08:00
b1c2852cd7
The choice to store them in an rbtree was made early on. It does not seem likely that HLSL programs would define many overloads for any of their functions, but I suspect the idea was rather that intrinsics would be defined as plain hlsl_ir_function_decl structures [cf. 447463e5900ca6a636998a65429b8a08a5441657] and that some intrinsics that could operate on any type would therefore need many overrides. This is not how we deal with intrinsics, however. When the first intrinsics were implemented I made the choice disregard this intended design, and instead match and convert their types manually, in C. Nothing that has happened in the time since has led me to question that choice, and in fact, the flexibility with which we must accommodate functions has led me to believe that matching in this way was definitely the right choice. The main other designs I see would have been: * define each intrinsic variant separately using existing HLSL types. Besides efficiency concerns (i.e. this would take more space in memory, and would take longer to generate each variant), the normal type-matching rules don't really apply to intrinsics. [For example: elementwise intrinsics like abs() return the same type as the input, including preserving the distinction between float and float1. It is legal to define separate HLSL overloads taking float and float1, but trying to invoke these functions yields an "ambiguous function call" error.] * introduce new (semi-)generic types. This is far more code and ends up acting like our current scheme (with helpers) in a slightly more complex form. So I think we can go ahead and rip out this vestige of the original design for intrinsics. As for why to change it: rbtrees are simply more complex to deal with, and it seems unlikely to me that the difference is going to matter. I do not expect any program to define large quantities of intrinsics; linked list search should be good enough.