On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 10:25 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, my_buf);
> GLfloat *data = glMapBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, GL_READ_WRITE);
> if (data == NULL) {
> /* fail */
> }
>
> /* Fill in buffer data */
>
> glUnmapBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER);
>
> Over:
>
> GLfloat *data = malloc(buffer_size);
> if (data == NULL) {
> /* fail */
> }
>
> /* Fill in buffer data */
>
> glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, my_buf);
> glBufferSubData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0, buffer_size, data);
> free(data);In terms of system performance, that 'extra copy' is not a problem though; the only cost is the traffic to the graphics chip, and these both do precisely the same amount of work. The benefit to the latter approach is that we get to use cache-aware copy code. The former can't do this as easily when updating only a portion of the data. > The second version obviously has extra overhead and takes a performance > hit. My measurements show that doing a cache-aware copy is a net performance win over using cache-ignorant word-at-a-time writes. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
