-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
remove ia pool. #15880
remove ia pool. #15880
Conversation
@cocos-robot run test cases |
c3f1dc4
to
8989fc0
Compare
Interface Check ReportThis pull request does not change any public interfaces ! |
8989fc0
to
ab4ce17
Compare
ab4ce17
to
188afc0
Compare
@bluesky013, Please check the result of
Task Details
|
@bluesky013, Please check the result of
Task Details
|
@bluesky013, Please check the result of
Task Details
|
How about the performance? and InputAssembler has its own allocator? |
Please use cocos-benchmark project(BunnyMark scene) to test 2D performance. |
The Input Assembler is a container for VertexBuffer and IndexBuffer. In the current 2D scenario, they both share the same VB and IB, so there is no need to create an additional IA for different drawInfo. The Input Assembler should not be coupled with DrawInfo. Set drawInfo interface will be deprecated in 3.9. The correct usage should be as follows: bindInputAssembler()
draw(0, 1)
draw(1, 2)
draw(2, 3) There are no operations that would have a performance impact, and there is no allocator either. The DrawBatch2D simply maintains independent drawInfo. |
currently under testing. |
I see. |
9f198b3
to
6dc589f
Compare
@bluesky013, Please check the result of
Task Details
|
@cocos-robot run test cases |
@bluesky013, Please check the result of
Task Details
|
Re: #
Changelog
Continuous Integration
This pull request:
Compatibility Check
This pull request: