RE: pfMemory clarification

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

robr++at++mastercam.com
Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:52:24 -0500


>> What concerns me here is that my memory leak behavior is very
different
>> (reduced) when I simply comment out the code that creates the
pfTexture and
>> attaches it to the pfGeoState.

>Assuming you've got it right, it's possible that Performer is leaking
texture
>related memory or that the GL is leaking memory. This all depends upon
the
>software versions though. I've tested scene graph memory leakage a fair
amount
>over the years and I don't remember pfTexture leakage at any time.

Early on in the Impact release, there were several texture leaks which I
passed along
to Sharon. I believe most were fixed then. One problem was that
Performer wanted to
keep the last applied texture as a global texture, thus its ref count was
non-zero and
it would never go away when I deleted it (directly or indirectly). The
workaround at that
time was to have my own small global texture which I applied after the
draw process
was done so that Pf would hang onto that instead of my scene-graph
textures. I believe
this was fixed some time ago though, although there may be some other
ugliness which
has crept back in.

In any event, it was useful to put a simple Pf-app together which
illustrated the leak so
the Pf-team could look at it, verify it and fix it.

Rob

===================================List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:06 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.