Skip to content

Add an initial proposal for HLSL 202x deprecations #488

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
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

llvm-beanz
Copy link
Collaborator

This proposal seeks to enumerate the smaller features that should be deprecated or significantly tightened in HLSL 202x, which are not large enough to indipendently warrant their own proposal documents.

These features represent technical debt in DXC's implementation of HLSL which should be removed in future language versions to avoid carrying it forward indefinitely.

This proposal seeks to enumerate the smaller features that should be
deprecated or significantly tightened in HLSL 202x, which are not
large enough to indipendently warrant their own proposal documents.

These features represent technical debt in DXC's implementation of HLSL
which should be removed in future language versions to avoid carrying it
forward indefinitely.
In DXC the `uniform` keyword is parsed and ignored. This may lead users to
believing it has some impact when it does not. We should remove it.

## Stricter restrictions on cbuffer Members
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My gut feeling is that this change may be significant enough to warrant a separate proposal that really explores this. I've included it here for now mostly to keep track of it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I re-scoped this to just cbuffer initializer expressions. The larger changes to cbuffer declaration contexts is proposed separately: #497

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant