Add test plan for sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions extension

[0x12CC]

No description provided.

[steffenlarsen]

It would be good to also have static_assert on the return type of all of these functions, but other than that I think this looks reasonable.

[bader]

@gmlueck, ping.

[gmlueck]

@gmlueck, ping.

I trust @steffenlarsen's review. Is there a specific question you would like me to answer?

[bader]

@gmlueck, ping.

I trust @steffenlarsen's review. Is there a specific question you would like me to answer?

You are the code owner of test plans for extensions, so formally either you or SYCL implementation representatives (i.e. @KhronosGroup/sycl-cts-reviewers team) have to approve test plans.
I'm really appreciate the efforts @steffenlarsen is making to push SYCL-CTS PRs forward, so I suggest we make him a formal reviewer of SYCL-CTS code and/or test plans.

[gmlueck]

I'm really appreciate the efforts @steffenlarsen is making to push SYCL-CTS PRs forward, so I suggest we make him a formal reviewer of SYCL-CTS code and/or test plans.

Yes, I agree.

[keryell]

@gmlueck It could be interesting if these functions were able to be found via ADL to avoid the namespace, for example if the extension header is used.

[keryell]

That looks good.

[gmlueck]

@gmlueck It could be interesting if these functions were able to be found via ADL to avoid the namespace, for example if the extension header is used.

In order to do this, I think we would need to define these functions in the sycl namespace instead of the sycl::ext::oneapi namespace. However, this would be contrary to our goal of exposing extended APIs only via an "extension" namespace. Therefore, we would probably not do this. However, if this extension was adopted into a future version of the core spec, then it would be defined in the sycl namespace, and it would therefore be available via ADL.