It turns out that most people new to this IR are surprised when an
assignment to (say) 3 components on the LHS takes 4 components on the
RHS. It also makes for quite strange IR output:
(assign (constant bool (1)) (x) (var_ref color) (swiz x (var_ref v) ))
(assign (constant bool (1)) (y) (var_ref color) (swiz yy (var_ref v) ))
(assign (constant bool (1)) (z) (var_ref color) (swiz zzz (var_ref v) ))
But even worse, even we get it wrong, as shown by this line of our
current step(float, vec4):
(assign (constant bool (1)) (w)
(var_ref t)
(expression float b2f (expression bool >=
(swiz w (var_ref x))(var_ref edge))))
where we try to assign a float to the writemasked-out x channel and
don't supply anything for the actual w channel we're writing. Drivers
right now just get lucky since ir_to_mesa spams the float value across
all the source channels of a vec4.
Instead, the RHS will now have a number of components equal to the
number of components actually being written. Hopefully this confuses
everyone less, and it also makes codegen for a scalar target simpler.
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Reviewed-by: Ian Romanick <ian.d.romanick@intel.com>
Whereas constant folding evaluates constant expressions at rvalue
nodes, constant propagation tracks constant components of vectors
across execution to replace (possibly swizzled) variable dereferences
with constant values, triggering possible constant folding or reduced
variable liveness.
