================
@@ -562,6 +572,69 @@ static llvm::Value *createSPIRVBuiltinLoad(IRBuilder<> &B,
llvm::Module &M,
return B.CreateLoad(Ty, GV);
}
+static llvm::Value *createSPIRVLocationLoad(IRBuilder<> &B, llvm::Module &M,
+ llvm::Type *Ty, unsigned Location,
+ StringRef Name = "") {
+ auto *GV = new llvm::GlobalVariable(
+ M, Ty, /* isConstant= */ true, llvm::GlobalValue::ExternalLinkage,
+ /* Initializer= */ nullptr, /* Name= */ Name, /* insertBefore= */
nullptr,
+ llvm::GlobalVariable::GeneralDynamicTLSModel,
+ /* AddressSpace */ 7, /* isExternallyInitialized= */ true);
+ GV->setVisibility(llvm::GlobalValue::HiddenVisibility);
+ addLocationDecoration(GV, Location);
+ return B.CreateLoad(Ty, GV);
+}
+
+llvm::Value *
+CGHLSLRuntime::emitSPIRVUserSemanticLoad(llvm::IRBuilder<> &B, llvm::Type
*Type,
+ HLSLSemanticAttr *Semantic,
+ std::optional<unsigned> Index) {
+ Twine BaseName = Twine(Semantic->getAttrName()->getName());
+ Twine VariableName = BaseName.concat(Twine(Index.value_or(0)));
+
+ unsigned Location = SPIRVLastAssignedInputSemanticLocation;
+
+ // DXC completely ignores the semantic/index pair. Location are assigned from
+ // the first semantic to the last.
----------------
s-perron wrote:
Can we give an reason for ignoring the semantic/index pair when assigning
locations? Is the only reason we are doing for compatibility with DXC, which is
a good reason.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153424
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
