2009/7/20 Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com:
2009/7/20 Matteo Bruni matteo.mystral@gmail.com:
That function, in particular, should really be into asmparser.c and not be visible from outside. Then the wine_dbg_sprintf() function comes really handy in this situation, I didn't know it. Note also that this debug_src function is used just to print trace info during asm parsing, not to generate the intermediate representation or the bytecode.
Yeah, but you can treat the debug output just like another asmparser_backend. That would mean calling the parser twice when debugging, but that should be ok. You can do something similar on the bytecode writing side.
I'm not so persuaded on making another backend for debug messages, as in this way the debug things would be separated from the processing code, and could easily happen they don't perfectly match (by mistakes). If you don't feel strongly against, I prefer to just fix the debug_src things as you suggested, without splitting the parsed_shader infrastructure.
A question: do you have an idea how I could split this in separate patches? I can think of separating the parser from the bytecode writer, but doesn't seems to me that this would be a real improvement. Adding some shader instructions handling each time (for ex. starting with just shader model 1, then separate patches for the subsequent versions) maybe is better, but the first patch won't be really simpler than this, I believe, as it would be alike this patch but without a bunch of cases/functions.
You could probably split it into a patch adding the basic framework and separate patches for each instruction. That also implies that you can wait with adding supporting functions like the various debug functions until they're used for the first time.
This needs some work but certainly can be done, and will be done when finally sending the patches to wine-patches.
Thinking about the basic design some more, it's not entirely clear to me why you've got separate asmparser_*() functions for each instruction though. They look largely similar, and I think the differences like e.g. number of source arguments could be handled by an appropriate lookup table.
While in principle this is right, as many functions are indeed very similar, this won't be pretty practically, even excluding that some instructions really need special treatment. The problem is that the different asmparser_* functions have different signatures (0, 1, 2 or 3 src registers, comparison or not, etc). So the generic function should accept all the parameter combinations used by them (leading to a quite long function signature), most of them set to NULL in the function invocation, or it should manage a variable number of arguments. Conversely, this is very much doable in the bytecode writer, as there all the functions have already the same format; I can simply replace the function pointers in the backends to make them point to a single function (excluding the instructions that really need special handling), and the function, using a lookup table or a switch, can convert from the internal instruction opcode to the D3D one.