Introducing Mesa intermediate representations on Intel drivers with a practical example


The recent big news on the Igalia work on Mesa was that our effort getting the ARB_gpu_shader_fp64 and ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit extensions implemented for Intel Gen8+, allowed to expose OpenGL 4.2 for Gen8+. But I will let other igalians to talk in details about them (no pressures ;)).

In a previous blog post I mentioned that NIR was intended to replace GLSL IR. Although that was true on the context I was talking about, that comment could be somewhat misleading, so I will try to clarify it.

Intermediate representations on Intel Mesa drivers

So first, let’s list the intermediate representations that you would find when working on Mesa Intel drivers:

  • AST (Abstract Syntax Tree): calling it an Intermediate Language is somewhat an abuse of language. This is the tree representation of your GLSL shader just after parsing it with Flex/Bison.
  • Mesa IR (Intermediate Representation): also called HIR and GLSL IR. A real Intermediate Language. It is converted from AST. Here you have optimizations, link support, etc.
  • NIR (New Intermediate Representation): a new Intermediate Language added recently.

So the first questions would be, why three? Having AST and another intermediate representation is easier to explain. AST is a raw tree representation, not useful to generate code. But why IR and NIR?

Current Mesa IR was created some years ago. The design decisions behind it had their advantages. But it has also some disadvantages. For example, their tree-like structure make it complex to traverse, making difficult to navigate, implement optimizations, etc. Other disadvantage was that it was not on SSA form, making again some optimizations hard to write. You can see a summary of all this on Ian Romanick’s presentation “Three Years Experience with a Tree-like Shader IR“.

So at some point an effort was started to “flatenize” Mesa IR and adding SSA support. But the conclusion was that the effort to modify Mesa IR was so big, that it was worth to just start from scratch using the learned lessons, as explained on Connor Abbot’s email “A new IR for Mesa“, in which he proposed this new IR.

Some time later, NIR was ready for production, and as I mentioned on my blog post (that one I’m clarifying right now), some parts of Mesa Intel driver was reimplemented in order to use NIR instead of Mesa IR. So Mesa IR was being replaced there. Where exactly? The parts where the final assembly code was being generated. And now that that is finished (at least on the i965 driver), we can say that Mesa IR is not used to generate code at all.

So right now there are an AST->Mesa IR->NIR chain. What is the plan now? Generate an AST->NIR pass and completely remove Mesa IR? This same question was asked (among other things) on January 2016, on the mesa-dev email “Nir, SCons, and Gallium“.  And the answer was “no”, as you can see on two Ian Romanick’s replies (here and here). The summary is that Mesa IR has several GLSL specifics that aren’t appropriate for NIR’s level. In that sense, NIR is a step below Mesa IR, more near to the GPU needs. It is also worth to mention that since then, Vulkan support was added to Mesa. In order to support Spir-V (Vulkan’s shader language, that is an intermediate representation itself), a SPIRV->NIR pass was created. In that sense, for OpenGL there is an OpenGL-specific intermediate representation, that is Mesa IR, and for Vulkan there is a Vulkan-specific intermediate representation, that is Spirv, and both are translated to the same common representation, NIR.

Practical example:

So, what means that in the practice? Do I need to deal with all those intermediate representations? Well, as anything in life, that would depend. If for example, you want to provide the support for a new GLSL feature or a specific hw, you would need to touch all three. You would need to modify the flex/bison files, so AST would need to be updated, and then Mesa IR, NIR, and the passes that transform one to the other. But if you want to give support for an GLSL feature that is already supported, but on new hw, the most likely is that you will not need changes on any of them, but just on the code that generate the final assembly using NIR.

And what would happen to other features like warnings and errors? Right now most of them are detected at the AST level, and some at the IR level. NIR doesn’t trigger any error/warning yet. It contains several asserts, but basically because it assumes that at that moment the representation of the shader should be correct, so if you find something wrong, means that the developer working on NIR is doing something wrong, in opposite to the developer that wrote the GLSL shader.

So lets go for a practical example I was working on: uninitialized variable warnings (“undefined values” on the bug tracking the issue). In short, this is about warn the developer about things like this:

out color;

void main()

 vec4 myTemp;

 color = myTemp;

What would be the color on screen? Who knows. So although is a feature you can live without, it is a good nice-to-have.

On the original bug, it was mentioned that this kind of errors are easy to detect, as NIR has a type ssa_undefs, so we just need to check if they are used. And in fact, when I started to work on it, I quickly find how to raise a warning. For example, on the method nir_print.c:print_ssa_def, used to debug, it is easy to modify it in order to point that it is using a undef. But trying to raise the warning there have some problems:

  • As mentioned NIR doesn’t have any warning/error triggering mechanism implemented, you would need to add them.
  • You want to include this warning on the OpenGL InfoLog, but as mentioned NIR is used for both OpenGL and Vulkan, and right now it doesn’t maintains any info about the origin.
  • And perhaps more important, at that point you lack the context data that points which source code line you are working on.

In fact, the last bullet point also applies to Mesa IR. There are some warnings raised at the Mesa IR level, but are “line-less”. Not sure any other developer, but for me, this kind of warning without a reference to the source line number would be annoying to use. Does that mean that the only option would be the totally raw AST tree?

Fortunately, Mesa IR was already saving if a variable was being statically assigned or not (to check some other possible errors). This was being computed on the AST to Mesa IR pass, and in fact the documentation mentions that this value is only valid at that moment. We would be on the middle of AST and Mesa IR. So when to raise the warning? The straightforward solution would be when a variable is , just before/after the error “variableX undeclared” is raised. But that is not so easy. For example:

float myFloat1;
float myFloat2;

myFloat1 = myFloat2;

How many warnings should we raise? Just one, for myFloat2. But technically we are also using myFloat1, and it is uninitialized. So we need to differentiate both cases. Being AST so raw, at that point we don’t have that information, and in fact it is also impossible to go up to the parent expression in order to compute that information. So it was needed to add an attribute on the AST node, that I called is_lhs (as “is left hand side”). That variable would be set when parent expressions are being transformed.

If you are taking attention, probably you start to see what would be the collateral effect of this. Being AST so raw, and OpenGL specific, there would be several corner cases needed to be manually assigned. In fact the  first commit of the series is already covering several corner cases. And in spite of this, once the code reached master, there were two cases of false positives that needed extra checks (for builtin-variables and for inout/out function parameters)

After those two false positives, managing this warning was spread all along the code that made the AST to Mesa IR pass, so seemed easy to broke. So I decided to send too some unit tests to verify that it gets working. First I sent the make check test that tested that warning, and then the unit tests. 30 unit tests (it was initially 28, but reviewer asked two more). Not a bad number for a warning.

Final words

At this point, one would wonder if it still makes sense to have this warning on the AST to Mesa IR pass, and if it would have it better to do it as initially proposed, on NIR. But although it is true that “just detecting it” would be easier on NIR, without dealing with so many corner cases, I still think that adding the support for raising warning/errors compatible with OpenGL Infolog, and bringing somehow the original source code line number, would mean too many changes on both Mesa IR and NIR. More changes that dealing with those corner cases when using the variable on the AST to Mesa IR pass. And in any case, if in the future the situation changes, and makes sense to move the warning to NIR, we would have the unit tests that would help to ensure that we don’t introduce regressions.

In relation to the intermediate representations, just to note that I’m focusing on the Intel driver. Gallium drivers use other intermediate representation, called TGSI. As far as I know, on those drivers, they have a AST->Mesa IR->TGSI chain, and right now there is a work in progress AST->Mesa IR->NIR->TGSI chain that will be used on some specific cases. But all this is beyond my knowledge, so you would need to investigate if you are interested.

Appendix, extra documentation:

If you want more details about MESA IR, you can read:

  • Read Mesa IR README
  • Read past blog posts from fellow igalian Iago Toral (when NIR was not available yet): post 1 and post 2

If you want extra information about Mesa NIR, you can read:



4 thoughts on “Introducing Mesa intermediate representations on Intel drivers with a practical example”

  1. MesaIR vs SPIR-V question: are they interchangeable? I.e., would it make sense to replace MesaIR with SPIR-V?

    Probably, it would be interesting to hear thoughts on alike question: NIR vs SPIR-V, are they interchangeable?

    1. MesaIR is really specific to OpenGL, so I don’t see them really interchangeable. A AST->SPIRV pass would be somewhat complex. I don’t think that it is worth the effort to replace MesaIR with SPIR-V. It would be more simple to just use Khronos tools to convert GLSL to SPIRV.

      And about NIR and SPIRV, more or less the same. SPIRV is a little more abstract, and NIR more near to the GPU, so more ready for the code generation.

  2. AFAIK SPIR-V is a storage format, and not in-memory one, suitable to optimizations, etc. So SPIR-V is used to save compiled shaders on disk, but need to be converted to other format (NIR?) to be further optimized and lowered to actual GPU instructions.

    1. Yes true, that its another reason why just replace MesaIR or NIR with Spirv is not really straightforward.

Leave a Reply to infapi00 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *