Add Access Flags for DescriptorBinding #224
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
spencer-lunarg
changed the title
spencer-lunarg
force-pushed
the
spencer-lunarg-accessed
branch
from
0a9a11a to
62309a3
Compare
spencer-lunarg
commented
Oct 29, 2023
| block: *bv2 # | ||
| array: { dims_count: 0, dims: [] } | ||
| accessed: 1 | ||
| access_flags: 0x00000000 # NONE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
last thing left in PR is figure out why this is not consistent with accessed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is
%13 = OpAccessChain %_ptr_StorageBuffer__struct_3 %2
%14 = OpArrayLength %uint %13 1
OpReturn
OpFunctionEn
and from looking at spec, this is not considered a read, just an access
spencer-lunarg
commented
Oct 29, 2023
| block: *bv7 # "" | ||
| array: { dims_count: 0, dims: [] } | ||
| accessed: 1 | ||
| access_flags: 0x00000000 # NONE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems
OpStore -> OpAccessChain -> OpAccessChain -> OpVariable
is a valid thing... need to fix
chaoticbob
requested changes
Oct 30, 2023
| SPV_REFLECT_ACCESS_READ = 0x00000001, | ||
| SPV_REFLECT_ACCESS_WRITE = 0x00000002, | ||
| // Atomic will always also be marked as READ and WRITE | ||
| SPV_REFLECT_ACCESS_ATOMIC = 0x00000004, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there ever a case where ATOMIC is used or checked by itself it it always inlcudes READ and WRITE? Wondering if there's a different way to express this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so I had it before as separate... #222 (comment) convinced me otherwise
This was referenced Nov 18, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
closes #222
The logic uses the same pattern as we do to detect
accessedboolean but expands the logic to look up one more instruction to see what type it wasExample: if we have the instructions
OpImageRead -> OpLoad -> OpVariable, before we just tracked theOpLoadtouched theOpVariableand marked asaccessednow we track this
OpLoadas aSpvReflectPrvAccessedVariableand we know both theOpVariableit points to, but now also track the Result ID so theOpImageReadcan find thisOpLoadI wrote the code to be consistent with the current code, which I think could be cleaned up to be easier to read/maintain, but would like to do that as a separate PR