-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
dxgi: Add DXGI_OUTDUPL_FLAG enum annotation to DuplicateOutput1() #1981
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
Open
MarijnS95
wants to merge
1
commit into
microsoft:main
Choose a base branch
from
MarijnS95:dxgi-associated-enum
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
| # dxgi: Add DXGI_OUTDUPL_FLAG enum annotation to DuplicateOutput1() | ||
| Windows.Win32.Graphics.Dxgi.IDXGIOutput5.DuplicateOutput1 : Flags : [In] => [AssociatedEnum(DXGI_OUTDUPL_FLAG),In] |
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Inversely, could we also have all the
=AssociatedEnumin here? It seems much nicer to me to have configuration in the namespace-specificsettings.rspthan in one humongous global file, if possible?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. The scraper and the emitter have different roles and supporting toolchains.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there any complete docs on what configures the scraper (probably the namespace-specific
settings.rsp) and what configures the emitter (probably the globalemitter.settings.rsp... 🙂), and when to use either?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://github.com/microsoft/win32metadata/blob/main/docs/architecture.md
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mikebattista unfortunately that doesn't explain directly which flags are available, nor what precedence I should stick to. Searching further in the repo shows that
--enumMakeFlagsis a feature ofClangSharpSourceToWinmdso it makes sense that that only works via emitter settings (and likewise,--with-attributeseems to be a feature of the scraper).The question remains: do we prefer to set the
Flagsattribute on the emitter via--enumMakeFlags, or do we prefer to set it earlier via--with-attributeon the scraper as done before this PR?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mikebattista are you able to help with the above question, so that we can further this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Resolving this thread as it seems like a tangent and unrelated to the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@riverar it's a valid question to ask whether to configure partition-specific types inside the... partition, or in the global file (and if either method has repercussions). That affects how this PR is structured (i.e. related) which now mostly hacks more types into the global file.
Sure we can merge this without that discussion since there are many more
DXGIannotations to move if partition-specific configuration is preferred, but we should still have that discussion (and resulting documentation improvements and.rspchanges somewhere). Should I click "reference in new issue"?