On Wed Jan 11 19:15:54 2023 +0000, Francisco Casas wrote:
Got it. I am afraid that `copy_propagation_compute_replacement()` will still require to receive an **input swizzle** argument though (which I think adds to the awkwardness). I will see if I can use the current output argument `unsigned int *swizzle` for both the input and output swizzles.
Oh, I remember why I made `copy_propagation_compute_load_constant_replacement()` receive the whole instruction as an argument. It is that the swizzle alone doesn't convey number of components requested, and that also isn't in the load itself, but rather in the swizzle instruction. I should add it as an additional argument then.