Name
KHR_image_base
Name Strings
EGL_KHR_image_base
Contributors
Jeff Juliano
Gary King
Jon Leech
Jonathan Grant
Barthold Lichtenbelt
Aaftab Munshi
Acorn Pooley
Chris Wynn
Contacts
Jon Leech (jon 'at' alumni.caltech.edu)
Gary King, NVIDIA Corporation (gking 'at' nvidia.com)
Notice
Copyright (c) 2008-2013 The Khronos Group Inc. Copyright terms at
http://www.khronos.org/registry/speccopyright.html
Status
Complete. Functionality approved (as part of KHR_image) by the
Khronos Board of Promoters on February 11, 2008.
Split into KHR_image_base and KHR_image_pixmap approved by the
Khronos Technical Working Group on November 19, 2008. Update to
version 5 approved on December 10, 2008.
Version
Version 8, August 27, 2014
Number
EGL Extension #8
Dependencies
EGL 1.2 is required.
An EGL client API, such as OpenGL ES or OpenVG, is required.
This extension is written against the wording of the EGL 1.2
Specification.
Overview
This extension defines a new EGL resource type that is suitable for
sharing 2D arrays of image data between client APIs, the EGLImage.
Although the intended purpose is sharing 2D image data, the
underlying interface makes no assumptions about the format or
purpose of the resource being shared, leaving those decisions to
the application and associated client APIs.
Glossary
EGLImage: An opaque handle to a shared resource created by EGL
client APIs, presumably a 2D array of image data
EGLImage source: An object or sub-object originally created in
a client API (such as a mipmap level of a texture object
in OpenGL-ES, or a VGImage in OpenVG) which is used as
the <buffer> parameter in a call to eglCreateImageKHR.
EGLImage target: An object created in a client API (such as a
texture object in OpenGL-ES or a VGImage in OpenVG)
from a previously-created EGLImage
EGLImage sibling: The set of all EGLImage targets (in all
client API contexts) which are created from the
same EGLImage object, and the EGLImage source resouce
which was used to create that EGLImage.
Orphaning: The process of respecifying and/or deleting an EGLImage
sibling resource (inside a client API context) which
does not result in deallocation of the memory associated
with the EGLImage or affect rendering results using other
EGLImage siblings.
Referencing: The process of creating an EGLImage target resource
(inside a client API context) from an EGLImage.
Respecification: When the size, format, or other attributes of an
EGLImage sibling are changed via client API calls such as
gl*TexImage*. Respecification usually will result in
orphaning the sibling. Note that changing the pixel values of
the sibling (e.g. by rendering to it or by calling
gl*TexSubImage*) does not constitute respecification.
New Types
/*
* EGLImageKHR is an object which can be used to create EGLImage
* target resources (inside client APIs).
*/
typedef void* EGLImageKHR;
New Procedures and Functions
EGLImageKHR eglCreateImageKHR(
EGLDisplay dpy,
EGLContext ctx,
EGLenum target,
EGLClientBuffer buffer,
const EGLint *attrib_list)
EGLBoolean eglDestroyImageKHR(
EGLDisplay dpy,
EGLImageKHR image)
New Tokens
Returned by eglCreateImageKHR:
EGL_NO_IMAGE_KHR ((EGLImageKHR)0)
Accepted as an attribute in the <attrib_list> parameter of
eglCreateImageKHR:
EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR 0x30D2
Additions to Chapter 2 of the EGL 1.2 Specification (EGL Operation)
Add a new section "EGLImages" after section 2.4:
"2.5 EGLImages
As described in section 2.4, EGL allows contexts of the same client
API type to share significant amounts of state (such as OpenGL-ES
texture objects and OpenVG paths); however, in some cases it may
be desirable to share state between client APIs - an example would be
using a previously-rendered OpenVG image as an OpenGL-ES texture
object.
In order to facilitate these more complicated use-cases, EGL is capable
of creating EGL resources that can be shared between contexts of
different client APIs (called "EGLImages") from client API resources
such as texel arrays in OpenGL-ES texture objects or OpenVG VGImages
(collectively, the resources that are used to create EGLImages are
referred to as "EGLImage sources").
The EGL client APIs each provide mechanisms for creating appropriate
resource types (such as complete texture arrays or OpenVG VGImages) from
EGLImages through a API-specific mechanisms. Collectively, resources
which are created from EGLImages within client APIs are referred to as
"EGLImage targets." Each EGLImage may have multiple associated EGLImage
targets. Collectively, the EGLImage source and EGLImage targets
associated with an EGLImage object are referred to as "EGLImage
siblings."
2.5.1 EGLImage Specification
The command
EGLImageKHR eglCreateImageKHR(
EGLDisplay dpy,
EGLContext ctx,
EGLenum target,
EGLClientBuffer buffer,
const EGLint *attrib_list)
is used to create an EGLImage from an existing image resource <buffer>.
<dpy> specifies the EGL display used for this operation.
<ctx> specifies the EGL client API context
used for this operation, or EGL_NO_CONTEXT if a client API context is not
required. <target> specifies the type of resource being used as the
EGLImage source (examples include two-dimensional textures in OpenGL ES
contexts and VGImage objects in OpenVG contexts). <buffer> is the name
(or handle) of a resource to be used as the EGLImage source, cast into the
type EGLClientBuffer. <attrib_list> is an list of attribute-value pairs
which is used to select sub-sections of <buffer> for use as the EGLImage
source, such as mipmap levels for OpenGL ES texture map resources, as well as
behavioral options, such as whether to preserve pixel data during creation. If
<attrib_list> is non-NULL, the last attribute specified in the list must
be EGL_NONE.
The resource specified by <dpy>, <ctx>, <target>, <buffer>, and
<attrib_list> must not itself be an EGLImage sibling, or bound to an EGL
PBuffer resource (eglBindTexImage, eglCreatePbufferFromClientBuffer).
Values accepted for <target> are listed in Table aaa, below(fn1).
(fn1) No values are defined by this extension. All functionality
to create EGLImages from other types of resources, such as
native pixmaps, GL textures, and VGImages, is layered in other
extensions.
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| <target> | Notes |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Table aaa. Legal values for eglCreateImageKHR <target> parameter
Attribute names accepted in <attrib_list> are shown in Table bbb,
together with the <target> for which each attribute name is valid, and
the default value used for each attribute if it is not included in
<attrib_list>.
+-------------------------+----------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Attribute | Description | Valid | Default Value |
| | | <target>s | |
+-------------------------+----------------------+-----------+---------------+
| EGL_NONE | Marks the end of the | All | N/A |
| | attribute-value list | | |
| EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR | Whether to preserve | All | EGL_FALSE |
| | pixel data | | |
+-------------------------+----------------------+-----------+---------------+
Table bbb. Legal attributes for eglCreateImageKHR <attrib_list> parameter
This command returns an EGLImageKHR object corresponding to the image
data specified by <dpy>, <ctx>, <target>, <buffer> and <attrib_list> which
may be referenced by client API operations, or EGL_NO_IMAGE_KHR in the
event of an error.
If the value of attribute EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR is EGL_FALSE (the
default), then all pixel data values associated with <buffer> will be
undefined after eglCreateImageKHR returns.
If the value of attribute EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR is EGL_TRUE, then all
pixel data values associated with <buffer> are preserved.
Errors
If eglCreateImageKHR fails, EGL_NO_IMAGE_KHR will be returned, the
contents of <buffer> will be unaffected, and one of the following
errors will be generated:
* If <dpy> is not the handle of a valid EGLDisplay object, the error
EGL_BAD_DISPLAY is generated.
* If <ctx> is neither the handle of a valid EGLContext object on
<dpy> nor EGL_NO_CONTEXT, the error EGL_BAD_CONTEXT is
generated.
* If <target> is not one of the values in Table aaa, the error
EGL_BAD_PARAMETER is generated.
* If an attribute specified in <attrib_list> is not one of the
attributes listed in Table bbb, the error EGL_BAD_PARAMETER is
generated.
* If an attribute specified in <attrib_list> is not a valid attribute
for <target>, as shown in Table bbb, the error EGL_BAD_MATCH is
generated.
* If the resource specified by <dpy>, <ctx>, <target>, <buffer> and
<attrib_list> has an off-screen buffer bound to it (e.g., by a
previous call to eglBindTexImage), the error EGL_BAD_ACCESS is
generated.
* If the resource specified by <dpy>, <ctx>, <target>, <buffer> and
<attrib_list> is bound to an off-screen buffer (e.g., by a previous
call to eglCreatePbufferFromClientBuffer), the error
EGL_BAD_ACCESS is generated.
* If the resource specified by <dpy>, <ctx>, <target>, <buffer> and
<attrib_list> is itself an EGLImage sibling, the error
EGL_BAD_ACCESS is generated.
* If insufficient memory is available to complete the specified
operation, the error EGL_BAD_ALLOC is generated.
* If the call to eglCreateImageKHR fails for multiple reasons, the
generated error must be appropriate for one of the reasons,
although the specific error returned is undefined.
* If the value specified in <attrib_list> for EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR
is EGL_TRUE, and an EGLImageKHR handle cannot be created from the
specified resource such that the pixel data values in <buffer> are
preserved, the error EGL_BAD_ACCESS is generated.
Note that the success or failure of eglCreateImageKHR should not affect
the ability to use <buffer> in its original API context (or context
share group) (although the pixel data values will be undefined if
EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR is not EGL_TRUE).
2.5.2 Lifetime and Usage of EGLImages
Once an EGLImage is created from an EGLImage source, the memory associated
with the EGLImage source will remain allocated (and all EGLImage siblings
in all client API contexts will be useable) as long as either of the
following conditions is true:
A) Any EGLImage siblings exist in any client API context
B) The EGLImage object exists inside EGL
The semantics for specifying, deleting and using EGLImage siblings are
client API-specific, and are described in the appropriate API
specifications.
If an application specifies an EGLImage sibling as the destination for
rendering and/or pixel download operations (e.g., as an OpenGL-ES
framebuffer object, glTexSubImage2D, etc.), the modified image results
will be observed by all EGLImage siblings in all client API contexts.
If multiple client API contexts access EGLImage sibling resources
simultaneously, with one or more context modifying the image data,
rendering results in all contexts accessing EGLImage siblings are
undefined.
Respecification and/or deletion of any EGLImage sibling (i.e., both
EGLImage source and EGLImage target resources) inside a client API
context (e.g., by issuing a subsequent call to
gl{Copy,Compressed}TexImage, glDeleteTextures, with the EGLImage
sibling resource as the target of the operation) affects only that
client API context and other contexts within its share group. The
specific semantics for this behavior are defined by each client API,
and generally results in orphaning of the EGLImage, and may also
include allocation of additional memory for the respecified resource
and/or copying of the EGLImage pixel data.
Operations inside EGL or any client API context which may affect the
lifetime of an EGLImage (or the memory allocated for the EGLImage),
such as respecifying and/or deleting an EGLImage sibling inside a
client API context, must be atomic.
Applications may create client API resources from an EGLImageKHR using
client API extensions outside the scope of this document (such as
GL_OES_EGL_image, which creates OpenGL ES texture and renderbuffer
objects). If the EGLImageKHR used to create the client resource was
created with the EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR attribute set to EGL_TRUE, then
the pixel data values associated with the image will be preserved after
creating the client resource; otherwise, the pixel data values will be
undefined. If the EGLImageKHR was created with the
EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR attribute set to EGL_TRUE, and EGL is unable to
create the client resource without modifying the pixel values, then
creation will fail and the pixel data values will be preserved.
The command
EGLBoolean eglDestroyImageKHR(
EGLDisplay dpy,
EGLImageKHR image)
is used to destroy the specified EGLImageKHR object <image>. Once
destroyed, <image> may not be used to create any additional EGLImage
target resources within any client API contexts, although existing
EGLImage siblings may continue to be used. EGL_TRUE is returned
if DestroyImageKHR succeeds, EGL_FALSE indicates failure.
* If <dpy> is not the handle of a valid EGLDisplay object, the error
EGL_BAD_DISPLAY is generated.
* If <image> is not a valid EGLImageKHR object created with respect
to <dpy>, the error EGL_BAD_PARAMETER is generated."
Add a new error to the list at the bottom of Section 3.5.3 (Binding
Off-Screen Rendering Surfaces to Client Buffers):
"* If the buffers contained in <buffer> consist of any EGLImage
siblings, an EGL_BAD_ACCESS error is generated."
Issues
1. What resource types should be supported by this extension?
RESOLVED: This specification is designed to support the
sharing of two-dimensional image resources between client APIs,
as these resources are a fundamental component of all modern
graphics APIs.
Other resources types (e.g., buffer objects) will not be directly
supported by this specification, due to a variety of reasons:
a. An absense of use cases for this functionality
b. Handling the semantics for some of these resources
(e.g., glMapBuffer) would significantly complicate
and delay this specification.
c. A desire to address the image-sharing use cases
as quickly as possible.
Should additional resource-sharing functionality be desired
in the future, the framework provided by this specification
should be extendable to handle more general resource
sharing.
2. Should this specification address client API-specific resources
(OpenGL texture maps, OpenVG VGImages), or should that
functionality be provided by layered extensions?
SUGGESTION: Use layered extensions, even for for sharing image
data with native rendering APIs (the EGL_KHR_image_pixmap
extension).
There are two major arguments for using layered extensions:
1. The two client APIs which are defined at the time of this
specification (OpenVG, OpenGL ES) may not always be
deployed on a device; many devices may choose to implement
just one of these two APIs. However, even single-API
devices may benefit from the ability to share image data
with native rendering APIs (provided in this specification)
or with the OpenMAX API.
2. OpenGL ES defines a number of optional resource types
(cubemaps, renderbuffers, volumetric textures) which this
framework should support; however, implementations may not.
By layering each of these resource types in individual
extensions, implementations which are limited to just the
core OpenGL ES 1.1 (or OpenGL ES 2.0) features will not
need to add EGLImage enumerant support for unsupported
resource types.
The original EGL_KHR_image extension included native pixmap
functionality. We have now split the abstract base functionality
(the egl{Create,Destroy}ImageKHR APIs) from the native pixmap
functionality, and redefined EGL_KHR_image as the combination of
EGL_KHR_image_base and EGL_KHR_image_pixmap.
3. Should attributes (width, height, format, etc.) for EGLImages
be queriable?
SUGGESTION: No. Given the wealth of attributes that we would
need to specify all possible EGLImages (and possible
memory layout optimizations performed by implementations), we
can dramatically simplify the API without loss of key
functionality by making EGLImages opaque and allowing
implementations to make the correct decisions internally.
4. Should this specification allow the creation of EGLImages from
client API resources which are themselves EGLImage targets?
RESOLVED: No. This can make memory garbage collection and
reference counting more difficult, with no practical benefit.
Instead, generate an error if an application attempts to
create an EGLImage from an EGLImage target resource.
5. Should this specification allow multiple EGLImages to be created
from the same EGLImage source resource?
RESOLVED: No. The resource <buffer> specified to
eglCreateImageKHR may include multiple sub-objects; examples are
mipmapped images and cubemaps in the OpenGL-ES API. However, the
EGLImage source is defined as the specific sub-object that is defined
by: <ctx>, <target>, <buffer>, and <attrib_list>. This sub-object must
not be an EGLImage sibling (either EGLImage source or EGLImage target)
when eglCreateImageKHR is called; however, other sub-objects in
<buffer> may be EGLImage siblings. This allows applications to share
individual cubemap faces, or individual mipmap levels of detail across
all of the supported APIs.
Note that the EGLImage source and any EGLImage target resources
will still be EGLImage siblings, even if the EGLImage object
is destroyed by a call to DestroyImageKHR.
6. If an EGLImage sibling is respecified (or deleted), what
should happen to the EGLImage and any other EGLImage
siblings?
RESOLVED: The principle of least surprise would dictate that
respecification and/or deletion of a resource in one client API
should not adversely affect operation in other client APIs
(such as introducing errors).
Applying this to EGLImages, respecification and/or deletion
of one EGLImage sibling should not respecify/delete other
EGLImage siblings. Each client API will be responsible for
defining appropriate semantics to meet this restriction;
however, example behaviors may include one or more of:
allocating additional memory for the respecified resource,
deleting the EGLImage sibling resource without deallocating
the associated memory ("orphaning") and/or copying the
existing EGLImage pixel data to an alternate memory location.
The memory associated with EGLImage objects should remain
allocated as long as any EGLImage sibling resources exist
in any client API context.
7. Should this specification address synchronization issues
when multiple client API contexts simultaneously access EGLImage
sibling resources?
RESOLVED: No. Including error-producing lock and synchronization
semantics would introduce additional (undesirable) validation
overhead in numerous common operations (e.g., glBindTexture,
glDrawArrays, etc.). Rather than burdening implementations (and
applications) with this overhead, a separate synchronization
mechanism should be exposed to applications.
8. Should eglCreatePbufferFromClientBuffer accept buffer parameters
which are EGLImage siblings?
RESOLVED: No. Allowing this behavior creates very complex
circular dependency possibilities (CreateImage / DeriveImage /
CreatePbufferFromClientBuffer / BindTexImage /
CreateImage / ...) with no practical benefit. Therefore,
attempting to create a Pbuffer from a client buffer which
is an EGLImage sibling should generate an error.
9. Should CreateImage accept client buffers which are bound to
Pbuffers (through eglBindTexImage)?
RESOLVED: No, for the same reasons listed in Issue 8.
10. Should implementations be allowed to modify the pixel data in the
EGLImage source buffers specified to eglCreateImageKHR?
SUGGESTION: By allowing previously-existing image data to become
undefined after calls to eglCreateImageKHR, implementations are able
to perform any necessary reallocations required for cross-API
buffer compatibility (and/or performance), without requiring
copy-aside functionality. Because applications are able to
respecify the pixel data through mechanisms such as vgSubImage
and glTexSubImage, no use-cases are restricted by this.
Therefore, the current suggestion is to allow implementations
to leave pixel data undefined after calls to eglCreateImageKHR
functions. The current spec revision has been written in
this way.
11. What is the correct mechanism for specifying the EGLImage source
resources used to create an EGLImage object?
RESOLVED: Three different mechanisms were discussed while
defining this extension:
A) Providing resource-specific creation functions, such as
eglCreateImage2DKHR, eglCreateImage3DKHR, etc.
B) Providing a single creation function which returns a
"NULL" EGLImage object, and requiring client APIs to
define additional functions which would allow client API
resources to be "bound" to the EGLImage object.
C) Provide a single resource creation function, and use
an attribute-value list with attributes specific to the
"target" image resource.
Initial specifications were written using Option (A); however,
it was believed that this structure would result in an increase
in the number of entry points over time as additional client APIs
and client API resource targets were added. Furthermore, reuse
of these functions was resulting in cases where parameters were
required to have modal behavior: a 2D image creation function
was required to have a mipmap level of detail parameter for
OpenGL ES texture maps, but this same parameter would need to be
0 for OpenVG.
Option (B) provided some nice characteristics: as client APIs
continue to evolve, any extensions needed to allow EGLImage
creation could be isolated in the individual client API, rather
than necessitating an EGL extension. However, the creation of
"NULL" images created additional semantic complexity and error
conditions (e.g., attempting to derive an EGLImage target from a
"NULL" image), and every client API would need to provide a
function for every unique resource type; instead of one common
API function for pixmap, OpenGL 2D textures, and OpenVG VGImages,
three would be required.
This specification is written using Option (C). There is a
single CreateImage function, with a <target> parameter defining
the EGLImage source type, and an attribute-value list allowing
for additional selection of resource sub-sections. This
maximizes entry-point reuse, and minimizes the number of
redundant parameters an application may be required to send.
This framework allows for layered extensions to be easily
written, so little churn is expected as client APIs evolve.
12. Should a context be explicitly provided to eglCreateImageKHR,
or should the context be deduced from the current thread's
bound API?
SUGGESTION: For clarity (both in usage and spec language), the
context containing the EGLImage source should be provided by the
application, rather than inferring the context from EGL state.
13. Why does this extension define a new EGL object type, rather
than using the existing EGLSurface objects?
RESOLVED: Although controversial, the creation of a new,
opaque image object type removes several fundamental problems
with the EGLSurface (and Pbuffer) API:
1) The tight compatibility requirements of EGLSurfaces
and EGLConfigs necessitated applications creating
(and calling MakeCurrent) for every unique pixel
format used during rendering. This has already caused
noticeable performance problems in OpenGL-ES (and
desktop OpenGL), and is the primary reason that
framebuffer objects were created.
2) Application use-cases are centered around sharing of
color image data, although unique "sundry" buffers
(such as depth, stencil and alpha mask) may be used
in each client API.
3) Extending the CreatePbuffer interface to support fully-
specifying all possible buffer attributes in all client
APIs will become unwieldy, particularly as new EGL
client APIs and pixel formats are introduced.
The EGLImage proposal addresses all three of these restrictions:
1) is addressed by placing the burden of framebuffer management
inside the client API, and allowing EGLImages to be accessed
inside client APIs using an appropriate resource type (such
as OpenGL-ES renderbuffers). This follows the example provided
by the GL_OES_framebuffer_object specification.
2) is addressed by defining EGLImages to be "trivial" two-
dimensional arrays of pixel data. Implementations may choose
to support creation of EGLImages from any type of pixel data,
and the association of multiple EGLImages and/or sundry
buffers into a single framebuffer is the responsibility of the
application and client API, using a mechanism such as
GL_OES_framebuffer_object.
3) is addressed by defining EGLImages as opaque and
non-queriable. Although this introduces potential portability
problems (addressed separately in issue 15), it avoids the
ever-expanding problem of defining buffer compatibility as the
cartesian product of all possible buffer attributes.
14. Since referencing EGLImages is the responsibility of the client
API, and may fail for implementation-dependent reasons,
doesn't this result in a potential portability problem?
UNRESOLVED: Yes, this portability problem (where referencing
succeeds on one platform but generates errors on a different
one) is very similar to the implementation-dependent
failure introduced in the EXT_framebuffer_object specification,
discussed (at length) in Issues (12), (37), (46), (48) and (61)
of that specification. Similar to that specification, this
specification should include some "minimum requirements"
language for EGLImage creation and referencing.
Since there are numerous references to an upcoming
"format restriction" API in the EXT_framebuffer_object
specification, it may be valuable to wait until that API is
defined before attempting to define a similar API for
EGLImages.
15. Should creation of an EGLImage from an EGLImage source
introduce the possibility for errors in the EGLImage source's
owning context?
RESOLVED: No; although image data may be undefined (issue 11),
the (successful or unsuccessful) creation of an EGLImage should
not introduce additional error conditions in the EGLImage
source's owning context. Text added to the end of section
2.5.1 describing this.
16. Is it reasonable to require that when a preserved EGLImage is
used by layered extensions to create client API siblings of that
image, pixel data values are preserved?
UNRESOLVED: There are at least two extensions that reference
EGLImages to create EGLImage targets, VG_KHR_EGL_image and
GL_OES_EGL_image.
Each of these extensions makes provision for failing the creation of
the EGLImage target due to "an implementation-dependent reason".
This could include that the pixel data has been marked as preserved,
and that the implementation is not able to create the EGLImage
target without causing the pixel data of the original EGLImage
source <buffer> to become undefined.
Issue 14 of EGL_KHR_image also discusses the consequences of failure
for implementation-dependent reasons. This implies that all
extensions for referencing an EGLImage need to make provision for
implementation-dependent failure.
PROPOSED: Yes, this is reasonable. We should add "EGL_KHR_image_base
affects the behavior of this extension" sections to the ES and VG
extensions. Implementations can continue to export EGL_KHR_image if
they are unable to support preserved image functionality.
17. Do EGLImage Target creation extensions such as VG_KHR_EGL_image and
GL_OES_EGL_image also need to be extended?
UNRESOLVED: The problem here is that both these extensions
explicitly state that pixel data becomes undefined when they
reference an EGLImage to create an EGLImage target.
One solution would be to allow this extension to do the defining on
behalf of these extensions. For example, the VG_KHR_EGL_image
extension on its own leaves the status of the pixel data undefined,
but when VG_KHR_EGL_image is combined with this extension, then the
status becomes defined (by this extension).
When combined with the reasons given in Issue 1, this means it is
possible to leave EGLImage Target creation extensions unchanged.
PROPOSED: Yes, augment these extensions as described in issue 16.
18. Is it reasonable for developers to want to preserve pixel data upon
creation of EGLImage and EGLImage targets?
RESOLVED: Yes. This is necessary for composition implementations
using EGLImages as an encapsulation mechanism for moving data
between producer application, composition API, and composition
implementation(s).
19. Should we really change the default value of EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR
when EGL_KHR_image is supported?
RESOLVED: No. This is a subtle and hard to diagnose source of
errors, and the only way to write a portable app would still be
to explicitly specify the attribute value. By making the default
value FALSE no matter which of the two extension(s) are
supported, compatibility with EGL_KHR_image is preserved, and
apps must explicitly ask for preservation if they need it.
20. Why is EGL_NO_DISPLAY not supported as the <dpy> argument for
creating and destroying images, unlike the original version of the
EGL_KHR_image specification?
RESOLVED: There are no defined use cases for this at present, so
there is no way to legally pass in EGL_NO_DISPLAY. If in the future,
a layered extension allows creation of images not associated with
any display, this behavior can be reintroduced.
Revision History
#8 (Jon Leech, August 27, 2014)
- Remove leftover comment saying that inapplicable attributes are
ignored (Bug 12585).
#7 (Jon Leech, June 12, 2013)
- Add a column to table bbb specifying which <target>s attributes are
valid for, and a generic error if an attribute doesn't match <target>
(Bug 10151).
#6 (Jon Leech, December 1, 2010)
- Clarify wording of EGL_BAD_CONTEXT error.
#5 (Jon Leech, December 10, 2008)
- Change definition of EGL_NO_IMAGE_KHR to 0 (appropriately cast)
instead of a reference to an extern implementation-defined
variable.
#4 (Jon Leech, November 25, 2008)
- Simplify error conditions for eglDestroyImage.
#3 (Jon Leech, November 12, 2008)
- Added glossary entry for Respecification, updated description of
behavior with preserved images per suggestions from Acorn, and added
issue 20 regarding removal of EGL_NO_DISPLAY as a valid <dpy>.
#2 (Jon Leech, October 22, 2008)
- Change default value of EGL_IMAGE_PRESERVED_KHR to EGL_FALSE.
Update issue 19.
#1 (Jon Leech, October 21, 2008)
- Split abstract functionality from EGL_KHR_image into this extension,
and merged preserved image functionality from
EGL_SYMBIAN_image_preserved.
