summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tests/reflection/vertex-input-semantics.hlsl.expected
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2017-11-29Add API to query stage of varying parameter (#302)Tim Foley
Fixes #301 The problem here is that if you have input GLSL code like: ```glsl // example.vs in vec3 pos; ``` and: ```glsl // example.fs in vec3 worldPos; ``` Then both `pos` and `worldPos` are reflected as global variables (parameters of the *program*), which both get bound to "varying input" resources, but there is no way to tell through the API that `pos` is a vertex parameter while `worldPos` is a fragment one. The original request in issue #301 was to expose parameters like this not as a global variables, but rather as parameters of the entry point in their specific file. That is, treat it as if the user had written, e.g.: ```glsl // example.vs void vsMain(in vec3 pos) { ... } ``` Doing that would unify the GLSL and HLSL/Slang cases a bit, but would require the Slang reflection API to lie about the structure of code the user wrote. At a more basic level, that would have been hard to implement because the current reflection API just exposes the underlying AST, and the AST *needs* to leave `pos` at the global scope so that when we go and spit GLSL back out we retain the original structure. This PR implements a more simplistic solution, where the user is allowed to query the stage that a varying parameter "belongs" to. For right now I'm only enabling this to work for varying parameters (but it doesn't care if they are entry-point or global-scope varyings). Despite what I said on #301, this should work for both the top-level parameter's variable layout, *and* any variable layouts for fields within its type reflection. In terms of implementation, I took the simple but wasteful route: every `VarLayout` now has a `stage` field that is by default initialized to `SLANG_STAGE_NONE`. When collecting varying parameters, I take advantage of the fact that everything bottlenecks through `processEntryPointParameter()` which takes an `EntryPointParameterState` so that I can set the `VarLayout::stage` field for any varying parameter in one place. While I was making this change, I also did a bit of cleanup so that the "official" names for the varying parameter categories are `VARYING_INPUT` and `VARYING_OUTPUT`, with `VERTEX_INPUT` and `FRAGMENT_OUTPUT` being "deprecated" in principle. I didn't do the bulk rename inside the codebase yet.
2017-11-07Add reflection API to get type name (#263)Tim Foley
This is currently only useful for `struct` types. I implemented a special-case exception so that the auto-generated `struct` types used for `cbuffer` members don't show their internal name. I did *not* implement any logic to avoid returning the name `vector` for a vector type, etc., since they are all `DeclRefType`s and it seemed easiest to just let the user access information they can't really use.
2017-10-19Reflection: allow querying of semantics on varying input/output (#224)Tim Foley
This is functionality required to support a Falcor bug fix. Most of the code to compute the right semantic name/index for a parameter was already present. This change adds: - Storage for semantic name/index on every `VarLayout` - Note: this is wasteful and should be optimized later - A public API to query the semantic name/index - The contract is that this API returns `NULL` if the parameter had no semantic - A bit of work in `parameter-binding.cpp` to attach semantics to varying input/output when traversing varying parameters. - Note: this is intentionally set up so that it associates semantics even with non-leaf parameters, so that an API user can query the semantic of a `struct` parameter and know that its members will be assigned sequential semantic indices from its starting value. - Support for dumping this information in reflection tests One notable thing that I did *not* change here is that the reflection test fixture doesn't report information on the output of an entry point, even though it really should. That should be fixed in a separate change, though, because it would affect many of the expected outputs.