This adds new validation rules that we were breaking.
Binding and DescriptorSet can't be applied to push constants, nor to
struct members.
Bug: skia:12670
Bug: chromium:1270328
Change-Id: I332f77717b08d9945c8e5b79c5bf649a8f5f2043
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/474056
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
This reverts commit 7bba1f55e8.
Change-Id: I707a3c215f37376086e22eaa43916afeed6da4c7
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/388456
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
This reverts commit a9c187e5cc.
Change-Id: Icbfb8abdfc67fc2e6428d97a6cdede2726fb56e4
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/385596
Auto-Submit: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
Commit-Queue: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
This reverts commit 9e476b798f.
Reason for revert: Angry Vulkan bots
Original change's description:
> Refactored SPIR-V RelaxedPrecision handling
>
> The RelaxedPrecision decoration is now handled by nextId(), to make it
> easier to see all spots where a RelaxedPrecision decoration might be
> necessary. The goal of this initial refactor is not to actually fix the
> issues with RelaxedPrecision decorations, but rather to lay the
> groundwork for doing so in followup CLs.
>
> The initial intent of this change was to not affect the SPIR-V at all,
> saving modifications for followups, but there ended up being three kinds
> of changes to the output:
>
> 1. Doing things at nextId() time rather than later means some
> decorations move to an earlier spot in the output. This results in
> diffs, but should not cause any behavioral changes.
> 2. We were incorrectly tagging bools as RelaxedPrecision in some
> situations. By funneling things through fewer code paths, the refactor
> would have caused this to happen in even more situations, and the code
> responsible for the bug was being rewritten in this CL anyway, so it
> seemed worth just fixing the issue as part of this change.
> 3. Funneling things through fewer code paths ended up adding
> (correct) RelaxedPrecision modifiers to binary operations that had
> previously been missing them. It seemed better to just let it happen
> than to try to maintain bug-for-bug compatibility with the previous
> approach.
>
> Change-Id: Ia9654d6b5754e2c797e02226660cb618c9189b36
> Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/384318
> Commit-Queue: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
TBR=brianosman@google.com,ethannicholas@google.com,johnstiles@google.com
Change-Id: I9ada728e5fd5798bc1179640560c2e6045b7efd1
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
No-Try: true
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/385158
Reviewed-by: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
The RelaxedPrecision decoration is now handled by nextId(), to make it
easier to see all spots where a RelaxedPrecision decoration might be
necessary. The goal of this initial refactor is not to actually fix the
issues with RelaxedPrecision decorations, but rather to lay the
groundwork for doing so in followup CLs.
The initial intent of this change was to not affect the SPIR-V at all,
saving modifications for followups, but there ended up being three kinds
of changes to the output:
1. Doing things at nextId() time rather than later means some
decorations move to an earlier spot in the output. This results in
diffs, but should not cause any behavioral changes.
2. We were incorrectly tagging bools as RelaxedPrecision in some
situations. By funneling things through fewer code paths, the refactor
would have caused this to happen in even more situations, and the code
responsible for the bug was being rewritten in this CL anyway, so it
seemed worth just fixing the issue as part of this change.
3. Funneling things through fewer code paths ended up adding
(correct) RelaxedPrecision modifiers to binary operations that had
previously been missing them. It seemed better to just let it happen
than to try to maintain bug-for-bug compatibility with the previous
approach.
Change-Id: Ia9654d6b5754e2c797e02226660cb618c9189b36
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/384318
Commit-Queue: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Added asserts that verify we don't try to emit the same struct or array
with two different memory layout rules. Some code paths were failing to
inspect the associated variable, leading to incorrect errors about the
attached offsets of members.
Added a test case that triggered that error, and also triggers the new
asserts.
Then, fixed the underlying cause: writing out the struct definition as a
side effect of accessing a member in getLValue().
Bug: skia:11205
Change-Id: I6e5fb76ea918ec9ff10425f2d519ddbc54404b27
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/357436
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Reviewed-by: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ethan Nicholas <ethannicholas@google.com>
