On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 01:06 +0100, Marek Olšák wrote:
>
> ([rant]We should really have an unmappable portion of VRAM as a
> feature, because unmappable memory is cool: the memory can be
> reclaimed immediately after texture deletion even if the texture is
> busy, because the CPU can't access it,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2013-03-14 at 23:35 +0100, Martin Andersson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> >
>> > + /* See if the texture format already matches the format and type,
>> > +* in which case the memcpy-based fast
On Don, 2013-03-14 at 23:35 +0100, Martin Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >
> > + /* See if the texture format already matches the format and type,
> > +* in which case the memcpy-based fast path will likely be used and
> > +* we don't have to bl
Thanks for implementing this, I just have one comment.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Initial version contributed by: Martin Andersson
>
> This is only used if the memcpy path cannot be used and if no transfer ops
> are needed. It's pretty similar to our TexImage and GetTe
