On 11/19/21 11:39 AM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 6:36 PM Zebediah Figura <zfigura(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 11/19/21 10:12 AM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:55 PM Giovanni Mascellani <gmascellani(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 18/11/21 18:28, Matteo Bruni wrote:
+struct copy_propagation_value +{ + struct hlsl_ir_node *node; + unsigned int component; +}; + +struct copy_propagation_variable +{ + struct rb_entry entry; + struct hlsl_ir_var *var; + struct copy_propagation_value *values; +};
I still haven't gotten warm to these names. What about copy_propagation_definition (or just copy_propagation_def)?
I don't understand why it's appropriate for this structure, but fine.
It's in the sense of "definition of the current value", more or less like the "def" in use-def chains.
I don't really like this, though, because both copy_propagation_variable and copy_propagation_value are "def"s, but we need some way of disambiguating what's being defined.
Okay, but I don't see how copy_propagation_variable is any better.
I'm fine with whatever, FWIW.
I suppose "copy_propagation_variable_def" is the correct solution :-) Though it does get long. I would have abbreviated to "copy_prop_*" in the first place (and then "copy_prop_var_def" I guess.)