[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] gl.sizeInBytes
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Chris Marrin <email@example.com> wrote:
So then maybe it would be better to replace these with constants (ctx.FLOAT_SIZE, ctx.INT_SIZE, ctx.UNSIGNED_SHORT_SIZE), etc.?
On Jan 10, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> It is hardly a matter of "does a GL implementation have 64-bit GL_FLOATs", but more of "the WebGL spec explicitly states the size of its types." -- the latter entirely shutting off the concept of "implementation dependent" sizes.
> Vlad's right, even if gl.sizeInBytes(GL_FLOAT) did return 8 (double prec.) there would be no way to efficiently/portably buffer the data.
I think we should leave sizeInBytes as a function rather than defining constants. On a hypothetical platform which defined GLfloat as a double, the WebGL implementation would be responsible for making WebGLFloatArray manage double-precision rather than single-precision floating point numbers.
As we consider proposing broader use of these array-like types, we will have to specify the exact size of the machine types they manage. However, the mapping between e.g. WebGLFloatArray to e.g. FloatArray vs. DoubleArray would need to be flexible.