Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] MR409: vkd3d-shader/dxil: Implement the DXIL BINOP instruction.

[Giovanni Mascellani (＠giomasce)]

> Sure. I think the main alternative would be to split the IR in two (or more) separate IRs though. I.e., you'd have a representation of the parsed TPF, then convert that to VSIR, and from there to SPIR-V.

The alternative I was considering would rather be to have only one IR, and use it for all shader language conversions, but not for disassembling. And then, for each language for which we support disassembling, have a dedicated disassembler (which probably doesn't really need an IR: it can emit as it parses). If we supported assembling too, we'd also have a dedicated assembler.

In my mind, assembling/disassembling and compiling (or transpiling, if we want to look more modern!) are two different beasts. For compiling it's useful to have an IR which is flexible and simple, but it doesn't need to faithfully represent precisely all the features of any other language. OTOH for assembling/disassembling you don't really care about flexibility, but it's important to represent faithfully every detail of the language.

My feeling is that trying to shove all these features (simplicity, flexibility, faithfullness to any language) on a single language is a bit overconstraining. Write dedicated assemblers and disassemblers is some additional work too, but I'm not sure the balance is in favor of our solution.
> The disassembler would operate on TPF IR, as would certain lowering passes. That's certainly a valid choice, but I think it's important to point out that while it would make some thing easier, it would also make some things harder. The most obvious is perhaps that we'd need separate disassemblers for d3dbc, tpf, dxil, and vsir. Somewhat less obvious is perhaps that we may need to duplicate certain lowering passes between e.g. d3dbc and tpf, because we'd no longer be able to express them in vsir. It may also make it slightly harder to do something like HLSL IR -> vsir -> d3dbc, because we'd have to get rid of complex texturing instructions when converting HLSL IR to vsir, and then reintroduce them when converting vsir to d3dbc.

If VSIR features are useful for translating between languages, then I agree it's sensible to have then. The part I don't like is having features only because some of the languages we support need to faithfully represent all their features (e.g., having to keep operations like NEG and ABS as register modifiers instead of as regular operators).
> Are those worth it? Well, maybe; it doesn't seem like an obvious win to me. Note also that it's not uncommon for languages/IRs to have different dialects or subsets; the obvious example here is perhaps LLVM IR/DXIL, but note that it's also true for all of d3dbc, tpf, HLSL, and GLSL to various extents.

I agree that finding the right balance is not easy here. But I can't help thinking our current situation is not ideal.
> We may want to tweak the vkd3d_shader_instruction_array data structure somewhat, but I don't think we'll need to do anything as drastic as converting the instruction array to a linked list; gap buffers tend to handle this kind of thing fairly well, and we may even be able to improve on that in specific instances.

I don't know much about gap buffers, but after some reading on Wikipedia I'm not convinced. It seems that a gap buffers makes sense when you have a concept of a cursor that mostly moves locally, while our passes usually scan the whole program each time. With a gap buffer you would end up copying the whole program each time, and by that token you could directly rewrite it in a new array each time. Also, random insertion with gap buffers seems to be comparable to arrays.

Following some link on Wikipedia, a [rope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_(data_structure)) might be a better match for us, being essentially a compromise between an array and a link-based structure.

-- 
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/vkd3d/-/merge_requests/409#note_51289