sharpdx / SharpDX

SharpDX GitHub Repository
http://sharpdx.org
MIT License
1.69k stars 641 forks source link

Move to windows SDK 16299 and netstandard2.0 #950

Closed mrvux closed 6 years ago

mrvux commented 6 years ago

Hello,

this PR adds .netstandard 2.0 support for all projects that supports it, and mapping files got updated to use headers from Falls Creator Update, which involved a couple new items and one fix, as mentioned in the commit.

Also, I removed GetInput/Output shader signature conditional compilation as this is working on all windows 10 uwp platform (including phone), so it makes sense that it is now part of the main api.

Thanks

xoofx commented 6 years ago

Hm, I'm wondering why are you looking for adding netstandard2.0? Afaik, the netstandard1.1 should be compatible with any netstandard1.1+

mrvux commented 6 years ago

Yes indeed, could keep targeting lowest possible version.

I'll update pull request for that purpose.

amerkoleci commented 6 years ago

I think we can keep netstandard 1.1 as min target but maybe also remove net40 and net45 as netstandard1.1 is compatible with net45 target? What do you think @xoofx ?

Still moving to SDK 16299 is OK for me.

bdachev commented 6 years ago

@amerkoleci net40 is not compatible with netstandard1.1 so IMHO it is worth keeping it for backward compatibility.

amerkoleci commented 6 years ago

@bdachev I see, but instead of wasting effort for net40 we can only focus on supported platforms, build will be faster and less #if to maintain, anyway user can just update to net45, maybe only for Direct3D9 which is supported under WindowsXP makes sense.

ab4d commented 6 years ago

@amerkoleci, all the users do not have the luck to be allowed to work on the latest .Net versions. There are still many projects out there that depend on net40 and cannot be easily switched to net45 because such things are not always free - in many cases this require some management approval, additional testing, updating documentation, support, etc.

amerkoleci commented 6 years ago

@ab4d , @bdachev no problem for me, was just proposing.

xoofx commented 6 years ago

@mrvux appveyor is failing, seems that it doesn't have yet 16299 installed there... We will have to wait a bit for this...