Add types for fields from cl_motion_estimation_desc_intel
#1261
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SunSerega
added a commit
to SunSerega/OpenCL-Docs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2024
Separated part of this to KhronosGroup#1261
SunSerega
added a commit
to SunSerega/OpenCL-Docs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2024
Separated part of this to KhronosGroup#1261
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The relevant enum values are already grouped in the
<require>tags.I think it's better to allocate separate types for each such group, so it's possible for higher-lvl (than C) languages to enforce assigning the right values to fields of this struct.
Creating as a draft because the spec also needs to reflect this.
@bashbaug, this was a part of #926; what do you generally think about this change?
Any suggestions on how spec text should be handled?
I think it's not worth incrementing the version here since it wouldn't change the implementations in any way - it's purely an interface change.
P.S. If we agree on this,
cl_mem_ext_host_ptrwould also need a similar change. I'll hold off creating that PR for now.