My understanding is that this is like having MAP_UNSYNCHRONIZED on at all times, even when it isn't "mapped", because it is always mapped (into memory). Is that correct Jose?
Patrick On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Grigori Goronzy <g...@chown.ath.cx> wrote: > On 05.02.2014 18:08, Jose Fonseca wrote: > >> I honestly hope that GL_AMD_pinned_memory doesn't become popular. It >> would have been alright if it wasn't for this bit in >> http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/AMD/pinned_memory.txt which says: >> >> 2) Can the application still use the buffer using the CPU address? >> >> RESOLVED: YES. However, this access would be completely >> non synchronized to the OpenGL pipeline, unless explicit >> synchronization is being used (for example, through glFinish or >> by using >> sync objects). >> >> And I'm imagining apps which are streaming vertex data doing precisely >> just that... >> >> > I don't understand your concern, this is exactly the same behavior > GL_MAP_UNSYCHRONIZED_BIT has, and apps are supposedly using that properly. > How does apitrace handle it? > > Grigori > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
