Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add BC formats. #812

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2020
Merged

Add BC formats. #812

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2020

Conversation

Kangz
Copy link
Contributor

@Kangz Kangz commented May 27, 2020

@litherum
Copy link
Contributor

I thought the whole point was to put these inside the extension, rather than in the main document.

@litherum
Copy link
Contributor

Are IDL comments normative?

@kvark
Copy link
Contributor

kvark commented Jun 1, 2020

@litherum I don't think we talked enough about how extensions are going to be represented. In Khronos APIs, you can find the following documents describing the API:

  • core API for version X
  • each extension in a separate document, written against core API of version X
  • core API with all known extensions compatible with it

Is this close to what you are thinking?

(as a side discussion, extensions can be somewhat elegantly represented as PRs, which makes it clear what version they are written aganst, and how they affect the spec).

@Kangz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kangz commented Jun 1, 2020

IMHO extensions that we expect all vendors to implement could be in the main spec. They are like optional features in Vulkan ("KHR" extensions are essentially core too), or things gated by feature levels in Metal and D3D12. It makes sense to have them along the rest of the spec because they are the extensions people are most likely to use, and will go through this group's standardization process.

Vendor or multi-vendor extensions can be in separate document so as to not burden the main spec if someone comes up with a full GLES1 fixed-function style extension for example.

@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor

This confusion is the reason I've been talking about calling these optional features "capabilities" or "features" rather than "extensions". I think the word "extension" should be reserved for things which are specified outside of the main spec.

BC formats solidly fall into the category of things that should be in the main spec. It is present on all desktop platforms.

@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor

Are IDL comments normative?

Not really, but there's no super-trivial way to organize this so that the blocks of formats are clearly written. It's better to have something here than nothing, but we should expect the comment to eventually get removed or made non-normative. Not everything we write into the spec right now can be shipping-quality, because editors haven't established the patterns yet.

spec/index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec/index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec/index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kainino0x kainino0x merged commit 0ceb9d0 into gpuweb:master Jun 15, 2020
@Kangz Kangz deleted the texture-compression-bc branch March 25, 2022 14:22
ben-clayton pushed a commit to ben-clayton/gpuweb that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2022
* wgsl: Add tests for shared entry point IO structs

Test that a structure containing entry point IO attributes can be
shared between different shader stages, between shader and non-shader
functions, and between entry points and buffers.

* Address review comments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants