Consider phasing out cl_gl_ext.h?

[bashbaug]

I discovered this issue while working generated OpenCL headers for extensions (see #113).

We currently have a header file for OpenGL-related extensions: cl_gl.h.

We currently also have a header file that appears to be for extensions to these extensions (?): cl_gl_ext.h. This header file includes cl_gl.h and adds an enum and API for cl_khr_gl_event.

Is there a reason to keep cl_khr_gl_event separate, or should we phase out cl_gl_ext.h and add this extension to cl_gl.h instead? I think I have the generation scripts setup to generate a separate file if desired, but it'd be one fewer file to generate and it'd fix a weird inconsistency if we combined the two files.

[kpet]

My vote goes to phasing out cl_gl_ext.h. As an additional observation cl_gl.h also defines functions with a KHR suffix. None of these have different dependencies. I cannot see any reason to keep two separate headers.

[bashbaug]

I cannot see any reason to keep two separate headers.

Confirming: Are the "two separate headers" cl_gl.h and cl_gl_ext.h? Or cl_ext.h and cl_gl.h"?

Moving the contents from cl_gl_ext.h into cl_gl.h and phasing out cl_gl_ext.h seems pretty easy and straightforward. We could do this ASAP.

I think we could go a bit further and move the contents of both cl_gl.h and cl_gl_ext.h into cl_ext.h, since we've broken the dependencies on the GL headers, but this would be a bigger change.

[kpet]

Confirming: Are the "two separate headers" cl_gl.h and cl_gl_ext.h?

Yes.

As you say we could look into folding cl_gl.h into cl_ext.h but that would be a bigger change better done separately.

[bashbaug]

Great, agreed.

I'll create a PR to fold cl_gl_ext.h into cl_gl.h. Thanks!