View Full Version : ARB_vertex_array_object questions

04-13-2003, 06:24 PM
The sample code in the extension spec initializes the buffer each time through its while() loop:

// Initialize data store of buffer object
// Map the buffer object

Is this necessary? Would it be possible to just re-map the buffer with WRITE_ONLY each time through, after sizing it once? Doesn't the spec actually allow for that, because reading from a WRITE_ONLY buffer is "undefined"?

Also, supposing re-calling BindBufferARB is the thing to do, will drivers optimize for the case where I use a single buffer for all my streaming needs? It seems it could internally cycle through some array of memory and do double-buffering, just like we currently do with NV_vertex_array_range and NV_fence.

04-13-2003, 06:29 PM
There's also a typo in the spec :-)

// Delete buffer objects
int buffers[2] = {1, 2};
DeleteBuffersARB(1, buffers);

Zak McKrakem
04-13-2003, 11:31 PM
About VBO...
I don't know if it has been posted before. But it is good to notice that 43.51 beta driver (http://download.guru3d.com/detonator/) exposes the VBO extension in the extension string.

Tom Nuydens
04-14-2003, 05:45 AM
Sizing the buffer just once at start up should work fine, with the one exception that you also need to do it if UnmapBufferARB() returns FALSE.

-- Tom

04-14-2003, 08:06 AM

That's what I think, too (I'd also check for NULL from MapBuffer). It'd be nice to have authoritative answers, though. The spec mumbles about a DiscardAndMap call not being added because it was good enough to do the NULL pointer BufferData call.

Let me re-phrase the question: is it legal for a driver to not provide the data you previously put into the buffer, if you MapBuffer with WRITE_ONLY usage? I would hope it is, because that would make for a better/easier/more convenient/possibly more efficient usage model.

Also, I still want to know if drivers are expected to optimize the case where you use a single logical buffer for all your streaming needs, but, because you discard the contents all the time, there's actually sufficient renamed physical buffers to not stall the pipe.

04-15-2003, 07:17 PM
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?