[v2 1/2] d3dx9: Support relative addressing in preshader.

[Matteo Bruni]

I haven't looked at the v3 patches yet, but in the meantime:

2017-03-29 2:09 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp at gmail.com>:

>     Oh, its a bug actually now, we should not mind absolute offset here if
> relative addressing is on, we know if it is out of bound or not when we add
> index register value only, which can be negative. Yes, it looks the only
> tables where we need to do this update table size are temporary register
> table (for which we don't have any size known in advance) and output tables.
> I would check that and if I am not missing something now would leave just
> update table size where required.

Yeah and temporaries are supposed to be written before being read so
in theory you can entirely skip the update_table_size() calls for
source arguments.

>     Otherwise, if to leave the way it is done now, if relative addressing is
> used update_table_size should be called on index register table/offset
> instead of main register.
>     Regarding absolute offset check, if the absolute offset (without
> relative addressing) is out of bound fxc does not allow to compile that. If
> to test what happens to native implementation in this case I need to update
> the blob manually. So do you suggest to check if the absolute offset to
> input table is in bound and print a FIXME/fail preshader creation in this
> case?

Failing with a WARN is probably the best option.
I don't think we necessarily need a Wine test for that, once you
tested what happens with native. If you want you can add a test with a
small effect manually hacked to contain an invalid argument.

> Immediate const count is not necessarily the multiple of 4 (it is not the
> case in the present tests). If we set PRES_REGTAB_IMMED count to 4 it breaks
> new out of bounds index tests (due to incorrect size to wrap to).

Hmm, I've never seen any effect with a number of immediates not
multiple of 4. Can you point me to one?