Re: [PATCH vkd3d 4/6] vkd3d-shader: Implement hlsl_error() and hlsl_warning().

[Matteo Bruni]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 5:11 PM Zebediah Figura (she/her)
 wrote:
> On 2/18/21 5:49 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:52 AM Zebediah Figura  wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Zebediah Figura
> > >
> > > libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.c                 |  18 +-
> > >  libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.h                 |   8 +-
> > >  libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.l                 |   3 +-
> > >  libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.y                 | 204 ++++++++++++-----------
> > >  libs/vkd3d-shader/vkd3d_shader_private.h |  18 ++
> > >  5 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
> >
> > I generally like the changes to the error messages. Regardless, I have
> > a couple of comments...
> > > diff --git a/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.y b/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.y
> > > index c33d97c6..9ffabbcb 100644
> > > --- a/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.y
> > > +++ b/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl.y
> > > @@ -768,12 +776,13 @@ static bool add_typedef(struct hlsl_ctx *ctx, DWORD modifiers, struct hlsl_type
> > >      if ((type->modifiers & HLSL_MODIFIER_COLUMN_MAJOR)
> > >              && (type->modifiers & HLSL_MODIFIER_ROW_MAJOR))
> > > -
> > >        hlsl_error(ctx, v->loc, "more than one matrix majority keyword");
> > > -
> > >        hlsl_error(ctx, v->loc, VKD3D_SHADER_ERROR_HLSL_INVALID_MODIFIER,
> > > -
> > >                "'row_major' and 'column_major' modifiers are mutually exclusive.");
> > >
> > >    ret = hlsl_scope_add_type(ctx->cur_scope, type);
> > >    if (!ret)
> > > -
> > >        hlsl_error(ctx, v->loc,
> > > -
> > >                "redefinition of custom type '%s'", v->name);
> > > -
> > >        hlsl_error(ctx, v->loc, VKD3D_SHADER_ERROR_HLSL_REDEFINED,
> > > -
> > >                "Typedef '%s' is already defined.", v->name);
> > >    vkd3d_free(v);
> > > }
> > >    vkd3d_free(list);
> >
> > This made me wonder whether defining a struct also implicitly defines
> > a type (i.e. can you reference a struct type by its name without
> > 'struct' even when there is no explicit typedef?). A quick test
> > suggests that's the case, if that's confirmed we should probably fix
> > it at some point.
>
> It does, and it actually already works with our parser. I guess that
> makes the message here slightly misleading (maybe "Type '%s'" would be
> better?)

Indeed it does work, I must have misread the code. Yes, I think a more
generic "Type" (as you did in v2) is nicer, thanks.