-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 410
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Check smoketest buffer/memory binding behavior #11
Comments
Comment by Tony-LunarG (MIGRATED) If I create N buffers, all with identical BufferCreateInfo structs, and call GetBufferMemoryRequirements only for the first buffer, wouldn't the returned values apply to all N buffers? I think that's what's going on here. Should that really be a warning? |
Comment by tobine (MIGRATED) @Tony-LunarG in most reasonable cases I would think the returned value for one buffer should apply to all identically created buffers but I don't believe that's required by the driver. There are some guarantees given by the implementation in the spec, but size doesn't appear to ever be guaranteed. If a user is comfortable creating a bunch of identical buffers, only retrieving memory requirements for one of them, and then binding them all to memory, they can simply ignore the warning. I suspect there will be a reasonable number of new Vulkan users who fail to call vkGetBufferMemoryRequirements() at all and make assumptions about memory that will benefit from the warning. |
This issue should be opened against the Vulkan-Tools repo. Closing. |
Remigrated to KhronosGroup/Vulkan-Tools#2 |
Issue by tobine (MIGRATED)
Thursday Nov 17, 2016 at 21:49 GMT
Originally opened as KhronosGroup/Vulkan-LoaderAndValidationLayers#1172
Smoketest has a buffer that is bound to memory without calling vkGetBufferMemoryRequirements(). The spec implies that this should not be done and there's a pending validation warning to flag this case. Understand smoketest behavior in this regard and update as appropriate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: