You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since we have started to include the extension version in the extension specs, should we include the extension version in the headers also? This will help applications to know what is the maximum version of the extension their headers support, vs. checking for the presence or absence of features that may be available only in newer versions of the extension individually.
This is done by some Khronos specs already. For example, the headers for a Vulkan extension include a line similar to:
#defineVK_KHR_SURFACE_SPEC_VERSION 25
If we decide to do this, ideally we would include the version in the XML file and generate it in the headers (#113, #161).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Since we have started to include the extension version in the extension specs, should we include the extension version in the headers also? This will help applications to know what is the maximum version of the extension their headers support, vs. checking for the presence or absence of features that may be available only in newer versions of the extension individually.
This is done by some Khronos specs already. For example, the headers for a Vulkan extension include a line similar to:
If we decide to do this, ideally we would include the version in the XML file and generate it in the headers (#113, #161).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: