Refactor getting/adding extension features to create a VkDevice with.

[asuessenbach]

Description

As described in #938, requesting and enabling extension features is currently incorrect. With this PR, this is done similar to how it's done for the simple PhysicalDeviceFeatures: one function to get the supported bits (get_extension_features) and one to actually set them into the structure chain (add_extension_features).
The perfect handling would look like this:

if (gpu.get_extension_features<VkExtensionFeaturesStruct>(VK_STRUCTURE_TYPE_EXTENSION_FEATURES_STRUCT).featureBit)
{
	gpu.add_extension_features<VkExtensionFeaturesStruct>(VK_STRUCTURE_TYPE_EXTENSION_FEATURES_STRUCT).featureBit = VK_TRUE;
}
else
{
	// some fallback or error handling!
}

To ease usage, [HPP]PhysicalDevice got two new template functions: request_optional_feature and request_required_feature, which log a message or throw an exception, respectively, if the requested feature is not supported.
To ease usage even more, some macros have been added, so that requesting a required feature would now look like

REQUEST_REQUIRED_FEATURE(gpu, VkExtensionFeaturesStruct, VK_STRUCTURE_TYPE_EXTENSION_FEATURES_STRUCT, featureBit);

Build tested on Win10 with VS2022. Run tested on Win10 with NVidia GPU.

Fixes #938

General Checklist:

Please ensure the following points are checked:

• My code follows the coding style
• I have reviewed file licenses
• I have commented any added functions (in line with Doxygen)
• I have commented any code that could be hard to understand
• My changes do not add any new compiler warnings
• My changes do not add any new validation layer errors or warnings
• I have used existing framework/helper functions where possible
• My changes do not add any regressions
• I have tested every sample to ensure everything runs correctly
• This PR describes the scope and expected impact of the changes I am making

Note: The Samples CI runs a number of checks including:

• I have updated the header Copyright to reflect the current year (CI build will fail if Copyright is out of date)
• My changes build on Windows, Linux, macOS and Android. Otherwise I have documented any exceptions

Sample Checklist

If your PR contains a new or modified sample, these further checks must be carried out in addition to the General Checklist:

• I have tested the sample on at least one compliant Vulkan implementation
• If the sample is vendor-specific, I have tagged it appropriately
• I have stated on what implementation the sample has been tested so that others can test on different implementations and platforms
• Any dependent assets have been merged and published in downstream modules
• For new samples, I have added a paragraph with a summary to the appropriate chapter in the readme of the folder that the sample belongs to e.g. api samples readme
• For new samples, I have added a tutorial README.md file to guide users through what they need to know to implement code using this feature. For example, see conditional_rendering
• For new samples, I have added a link to the Antora navigation so that the sample will be listed at the Vulkan documentation site

[gary-sweet]

I don't think we can just assert in all these cases can we?
It seems to prevent batch mode from running as soon as it finds an unsupported case.

[asuessenbach]

I don't think we can just assert in all these cases can we?

You're kind of right. As I stated in the Description above, that should be replaced by some meaningful error or fall-back handling.
What would you suggest to do instead until then?

[gary-sweet]

What would you suggest to do instead until then?

Well throwing a std::runtime_error would be better, as it doesn't terminate batch mode, just the current sample I guess.

I'm also not really sure what was wrong with just having a single call to request_extension_features? I can't see why unrolling that code everywhere is better. Maybe I'm just missing the issue that's being solved here.

[asuessenbach]

I'm also not really sure what was wrong with just having a single call to request_extension_features?

The problem, as described in #938, was, that currently you get the supported extension features bits, possibly set some of them to true, no matter if they are supported at all, and store that structure in the structure chain for device creation.
That is, there are two issues:

• All supported flags are requested, no matter if you actually need/want the support of all those flags.
• Potentially support of a not supported feature is requested.

With this PR, you just set the flags you're interested in and when they're supported at all.

[asuessenbach]

Well throwing a std::runtime_error would be better, as it doesn't terminate batch mode, just the current sample I guess.

Sounds good. I can change that accordingly.

[gary-sweet]

I think you'll need to rebase this over #1031. A lot of the samples don't run without that, so testing this isn't really possible without it.