Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] MR174: Consolidate the TPF and d3dbc handling code.

[Henri Verbeet (＠hverbeet)]

> > In practice I see a number of difficulties:
> >
> > * Shaders are not just code; they also embed interface information (input and output signatures, uniforms, buffers, object bindings, ...) and other random metadata (for example for the hull shaders). Should this be representable in the common IR?
>
> We need *some* way to represent that information so it doesn't get lost, at least. I think we don't want side channels, to be clear: I think that there should be a point where all of the information relevant to a shader is represented in v_s_i format, including metadata.
>
> And contrary to the instructions themselves, I think we want this information to be in a relatively simple and well-designed form. In a sense, it doesn't need to be "complex" like the instructions since we're not doing optimization passes over it \[if that makes sense\]. I think Conor has basically been pushing v_s_i in this direction in order to accommodate sm6 (at least wrt semantics), and given the tribulations I've had to endure to get sm1 to work, I think that's the right approach.

Yes, although I don't think that necessarily means storing these as "instructions". The approach I'm personally leaning towards at this point is to rebrand "struct vkd3d_shader_instruction_array" as "struct vkd3d_shader_program" (or something along those lines), and then add the input/output/patch constant signatures and the shader version structure to that structure. I think a similar approach should work for e.g. RDEF as well.

-- 
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/vkd3d/-/merge_requests/174#note_31631