<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - [IVB regression] glTexSubImage2D performance" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83442#c12">Comment # 12</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - [IVB regression] glTexSubImage2D performance" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83442">bug 83442</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:mark.newiger@seefront.com" title="Mark Newiger <mark.newiger@seefront.com>"> Mark Newiger</a> <pre>I compiled the 10.3 Mesa version and can confirm that the sample code is now performing better than the 8.0.4 Mesa version. It also turned out that some glPixelStoragei() calls where causing the performance drop. I forgot to add this in the sample code. I was using the following lines to split one large 1920x1080 sideByside Bitmap into 2 texture objects: // Storing left texture. glPixelStorei(GL_UNPACK_ROW_LENGTH, 1920); glPixelStorei(GL_UNPACK_SKIP_PIXELS, 0); glTexSubImage2D(...) // Storing right texture. glPixelStorei(GL_UNPACK_ROW_LENGTH, 1920); glPixelStorei(GL_UNPACK_SKIP_PIXELS, 960); glTexSubImage2D(...) For some reason glTexSubImage2D() together with these glPixelStoragei() calls are performing better with the old Mesa version. I am now splitting the 1920x1080 texture inside the shader so I do not need the glPixelStoragei() calls any more. In total I gained a performance increase as glTexSubImage2D() without changing the pixel storage is behaving better with the new Mesa versions. I guress this ticket can be set to fixed then. Thanks.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>