# C++ Convert functions to linux (gcc)

## Recommended Posts

Hey there,  I have this old code im trying to compile using GCC and am running into a few issues..

im trying to figure out how to convert these functions to gcc

static __int64 MyQueryPerformanceFrequency()
{
static __int64 aFreq = 0;
if(aFreq!=0)
return aFreq;

LARGE_INTEGER s1, e1, f1;
__int64 s2, e2, f2;
QueryPerformanceCounter(&s1);
s2 = MyQueryPerformanceCounter();
Sleep(50);
e2 = MyQueryPerformanceCounter();
QueryPerformanceCounter(&e1);
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&f1);
f2 = (e2 - s2)/aTime;
aFreq = f2;

return aFreq;
}

void PerfTimer::GlobalStart(const char *theName)
{
gPerfTimerStarted = true;
gPerfTotalTime = 0;
gPerfTimerStartCount = 0;
gPerfElapsedTime = 0;

LARGE_INTEGER anInt; QueryPerformanceCounter(&anInt);
}

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void PerfTimer::GlobalStop(const char *theName)
{
LARGE_INTEGER anInt; QueryPerformanceCounter(&anInt);
LARGE_INTEGER aFreq; QueryPerformanceFrequency(&aFreq);
gPerfTimerStarted = false;
}

I also tried converting this function (original function is the first function below and my converted for gcc function is under that) is this correct?:

#if defined(WIN32)
static __int64 MyQueryPerformanceCounter()
{
//	LARGE_INTEGER anInt;
//	QueryPerformanceCounter(&anInt);
#if defined(WIN32)
unsigned long x,y;
_asm
{
rdtsc
mov x, eax
mov y, edx
}

__int64 result = y;
result<<=32;
result|=x;
return result;

}
#else

static __int64 MyQueryPerformanceCounter()
{

struct timeval t1, t2;
double elapsedTime;

// start timer
gettimeofday(&t1, NULL);

Sleep(50);

// stop timer
gettimeofday(&t2, NULL);

// compute and print the elapsed time in millisec
elapsedTime = (t2.tv_sec - t1.tv_sec) * 1000.0;      // sec to ms
elapsedTime += (t2.tv_usec - t1.tv_usec) / 1000.0;   // us to ms

return elapsedTime;

}
#endif

Any help would be appreciated, Thank you!

##### Share on other sites

QueryPerformanceCounter is a Windows specific function for a high resolution timer. Equivalent functions on Linux should be google-able with that term :-)

##### Share on other sites

this is what i have now:

static __int64 MyQueryPerformanceCounter()
{
//	LARGE_INTEGER anInt;
//	QueryPerformanceCounter(&anInt);
unsigned long x,y;

#if defined(WIN32)
_asm
{
rdtsc
mov x, eax
mov y, edx
}
#else

__asm__ __volatile__ ("rdtsc" : "=a" (x), "=d" (y));

// OR THIS CODE? Code to read Time Stamp Counter
/*
asm(
"	rdtsc\n"
"	mov %%eax, %0\n"
"	mov %%edx, %1\n"
:
"=a" (x),
"=d" (y)
);
*/
#endif

__int64 result = y;
result<<=32;
result|=x;
return result;
}

static __int64 MyQueryPerformanceFrequency()
{
timeval t1, t2;
__int64 s2, e2;
double elapsedTime;

// start timer
gettimeofday(&t1, NULL);
s2 = MyQueryPerformanceCounter();
Sleep(50);
e2 = MyQueryPerformanceCounter();
// stop timer
gettimeofday(&t2, NULL);

// compute and print the elapsed time in millisec
elapsedTime = (t2.tv_sec - t1.tv_sec) * 1000.0;      // sec to ms
elapsedTime += (t2.tv_usec - t1.tv_usec) / 1000.0;   // us to ms
//	cout << elapsedTime << " ms.\n";

return (__int64)((e2 - s2)/elapsedTime);

}


does that look acceptable?

##### Share on other sites

gettimeofday is quite normal for measuring time. There is also std::clock http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/chrono/c/clock which is more portable. Don't know its precision, likely it varies between platforms.

For more extensive measuring, it might be useful to first convert timeval to a single 64 bit number, eg in nanoseconds for instance, and then compute time differences, and accumulating time.

Instead of the __int64, use std::int64_t standard types, which are more portable.

##### Share on other sites

There's clock_gettime in Linux. It gives you the time with nano-second resolution (but lower precision, usually), but clock_getres can be used to find the actual precision.

You may want to use the clock named CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW to get the actual real time that has passed.

##### Share on other sites

I've been using SDL2 SDL_GetPerformanceFrequency() and SDL_GetPerformanceCounter().

I've tracked down what (I think) is the source from

Which seems to use  clock_gettime as rnlf_in_space suggested if supported, or fallback to gettimeofday.

Edited by lawnjelly

##### Share on other sites

For unix based systems

#ifndef TimerH
#define TimerH

//#include "const_vars.h"
#ifndef WINDOWS_CMP
#include "stdint.h"

const int64_t nsec_per_sec = 1000000000;
const double ns_2_s = 1000000000.0;

typedef struct {
int64_t start;
int64_t stop;
} stopWatch;

class CStopWatch {

stopWatch timer;

public:
CStopWatch() ;
void startTimer();
void stopTimer();
double getElapsedTime();
double getElapsedTimeFromStart();
double getTime();
};
#endif

#ifdef WINDOWS_CMP
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------

#include "windows.h"
#include <ctime>
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------

typedef struct {
LARGE_INTEGER start;
LARGE_INTEGER stop;
} stopWatch;

class CStopWatch {

private:
double PCFreq;// = 0.0;
stopWatch timer;
LARGE_INTEGER frequency;
double LIToSecs( LARGE_INTEGER & L) ;
public:
CStopWatch() ;
void startTimer();
void stopTimer();
double getElapsedTime();
double getElapsedTimeFromStart();
double getTime();
};
#endif

#endif

Cpp

//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include "Timer.h"
#ifndef WINDOWS_CMP
#include "Time.h"
#include "logme.h"
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------

//returns time in miliseconds
int64_t QueryPerformanceCounter()
{
int64_t nsec_count, nsec_per_tick;
/*
* clock_gettime() returns the number of secs. We translate that to number of nanosecs.
* clock_getres() returns number of seconds per tick. We translate that to number of nanosecs per tick.
* Number of nanosecs divided by number of nanosecs per tick - will give the number of ticks.
*/
struct timespec ts1, ts2;

if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts1) != 0) {
ALOG("FAILED TO GET TIME");
return -1;
}

nsec_count = ts1.tv_nsec + ts1.tv_sec * nsec_per_sec;

return double(nsec_count) / 1000000.0;
}

CStopWatch::CStopWatch(){

}

void CStopWatch::startTimer() {
timer.start = QueryPerformanceCounter();
}

void CStopWatch::stopTimer() {
timer.stop = QueryPerformanceCounter();
}

double CStopWatch::getElapsedTime() {
stopTimer();
int64_t time = timer.stop - timer.start;
startTimer();

return double(time);

}

double CStopWatch::getTime() {

int64_t time = QueryPerformanceCounter();

return double(time);

}

double CStopWatch::getElapsedTimeFromStart() {
stopTimer();
int64_t time = timer.stop - timer.start;

return double(time);

}
#endif

#ifdef WINDOWS_CMP
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------

#pragma hdrstop

#include "Timer.h"

//---------------------------------------------------------------------------

#pragma package(smart_init)

double CStopWatch::LIToSecs( LARGE_INTEGER & L)
{
}

CStopWatch::CStopWatch(){
PCFreq = 0.0;
QueryPerformanceFrequency( &frequency ) ;
}

void CStopWatch::startTimer( ) {
QueryPerformanceCounter(&timer.start) ;
}

void CStopWatch::stopTimer( ) {
QueryPerformanceCounter(&timer.stop) ;
}

double CStopWatch::getElapsedTime() {
stopTimer();
LARGE_INTEGER time;
startTimer();
return LIToSecs( time ) ;
}

double CStopWatch::getTime() {
stopTimer();

return LIToSecs( time ) ;

}
double CStopWatch::getElapsedTimeFromStart() {
stopTimer();

return LIToSecs( time ) ;

}

#endif

##### Share on other sites

I think you may want to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW instead of CLOCK_MONOTONIC. It doesn't make a huge difference, and mostlikely never causes any notiveable problems, but CLOCK_MONOTONIC may run slower or faster than "real" time, when the clock gets adjusted.

Basically, a correctly implemented tool to set system time on a UNIX system will not just set the new time, but rather slow down or speed up the system clock to gradually go to the new time. This is so that there are no jumps in the system time, which will throw off a bunch of things on a UNIX system.

CLOCK_MONOTONIC is subject to these adjustments, so you might experience a time where your game does not actually measure one second of realtime as one second, but rather as 1.1s or something like that. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW is never sped up or slowed down.

##### Share on other sites

For sleep(50), you will need to use usleep(50000) (or, for sleep(x), use usleep(x*1000)); be careful not to use "sleep(50)", as this is denominated in seconds, rather than milliseconds. usleep() is denominated in microseconds.

##### Share on other sites

Why not look into the Boost library for what you want? It will give you all the functionality and some that you need!

## Create an account

Register a new account

• ### Similar Content

• By nilkun
Hello everyone!
First time posting in the forum.
I've just completed my first game ever ( C++ / SDL ), and I am feeling utterly proud. It is a small game resembling Missile Command. The code is a mess, but it is my mess! In the process of making the game, I developed my own little game engine.
My question is, where would be a good place to spread the news to at least get some people to try the game?
• By owenjr
Hi, I'm a Multimedia Engineering student. I am about to finish my dergree and I'm already thinking about what topic to cover in my final college project.
I'm interested in the procedural animation with c++ and OpenGL of creatures, something like a spider for example. Can someone tell me what are the issues I should investigate to carry it out? I understand that it has some dependence on artificial intelligence but I do not know to what extent. Can someone help me to find information about it? Thank you very much.

Examples:
- Procedural multi-legged walking animation
- Procedural Locomotion of Multi-Legged Characters in Dynamic Environments

• I am a talented 2D/3D artist with 3 years animation working experience and a Degree in Illustration and Animation. I have won a world-wide art competition hosted by SFX magazine and am looking to develop a survival game. I have some knowledge of C sharp and have notes for a survival based game with flexible storyline and PVP. Looking for developers to team up with. I can create models, animations and artwork and I have beginner knowledge of C sharp with Unity. The idea is Inventory menu based gameplay and is inspired by games like DAYZ.
Here is some early sci-fi concept art to give you an idea of the work level. Hope to work with like minded people and create something special. email me andrewparkesanim@gmail.com.
Developers who share the same passion please contact me, or if you have a similar project and want me to join your team email me.
Many thanks, Andrew.

• By mike44
Hi
saw in dependency walker that my app still needs msvcp140d.dll even after disabling debug.
What did I forget in the VS2017 release settings? After setting to multithreaded dll I get linker errors.
Thanks

• So I have been playing around with yaml-cpp as I want to use YAML for most of my game data files however I am running into some pretty big performance issues and not sure if it is something I am doing or the library itself.
I created this code in order to test a moderately sized file:
Player newPlayer = Player(); newPlayer.name = "new player"; newPlayer.maximumHealth = 1000; newPlayer.currentHealth = 1; Inventory newInventory; newInventory.maximumWeight = 10.9f; for (int z = 0; z < 10000; z++) { InventoryItem* newItem = new InventoryItem(); newItem->name = "Stone"; newItem->baseValue = 1; newItem->weight = 0.1f; newInventory.items.push_back(newItem); } YAML::Node newSavedGame; newSavedGame["player"] = newPlayer; newSavedGame["inventory"] = newInventory; This is where I ran into my first issue, memory consumption.
Before I added this code, the memory usage of my game was about 22MB. After I added everything expect the YAML::Node stuff, it went up to 23MB, so far nothing unexpected. Then when I added the YAML::Node and added data to it, the memory went up to 108MB. I am not sure why when I add the class instance it only adds like 1MB of memory but then copying that data to a YAML:Node instance, it take another 85MB of memory.
So putting that issue aside, I want want to test the performance of writing out the files. the initial attempt looked like this:
void YamlUtility::saveAsFile(YAML::Node node, std::string filePath) { std::ofstream myfile; myfile.open(filePath); myfile << node << std::endl; myfile.close(); } To write out the file (that ends up to be about 570KB), it took about 8 seconds to do that. That seems really slow to me.
After read the documentation a little more I decide to try a different route using the YAML::Emitter, the implemntation looked like this:
static void buildYamlManually(std::ofstream& file, YAML::Node node) { YAML::Emitter out; out << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "player" << YAML::Value << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "name" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["name"].as<std::string>() << YAML::Key << "maximumHealth" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["maximumHealth"].as<int>() << YAML::Key << "currentHealth" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["currentHealth"].as<int>() << YAML::EndMap; out << YAML::BeginSeq; std::vector<InventoryItem*> items = node["inventory"]["items"].as<std::vector<InventoryItem*>>(); for (InventoryItem* const value : items) { out << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "name" << YAML::Value << value->name << YAML::Key << "baseValue" << YAML::Value << value->baseValue << YAML::Key << "weight" << YAML::Value << value->weight << YAML::EndMap; } out << YAML::EndSeq; out << YAML::EndMap; file << out.c_str() << std::endl; } While this did seem to improve the speed, it was still take about 7 seconds instead of 8 seconds.
Since it has been a while since I used C++ and was not sure if this was normal, I decided to for testing just write a simple method to manually generate the YAMLin this use case, that looked something like this:
static void buildYamlManually(std::ofstream& file, SavedGame savedGame) { file << "player: \n" << " name: " << savedGame.player.name << "\n maximumHealth: " << savedGame.player.maximumHealth << "\n currentHealth: " << savedGame.player.currentHealth << "\ninventory:" << "\n maximumWeight: " << savedGame.inventory.maximumWeight << "\n items:"; for (InventoryItem* const value : savedGame.inventory.items) { file << "\n - name: " << value->name << "\n baseValue: " << value->baseValue << "\n weight: " << value->weight; } } This wrote the same file and it took about 0.15 seconds which seemed a lot more to what I was expecting.
While I would expect some overhead in using yaml-cpp to manage and write out YAML files, it consuming 70X+ the amount of memory and it being 40X+ slower in writing files seems really bad.
I am not sure if I am doing something wrong with how I am using yaml-cpp that would be causing this issue or maybe it was never design to handle large files but was just wondering if anyone has any insight on what might be happening here (or an alternative to dealing with YAMLin C++)?

• So I am trying to using Yaml as my game data files (mainly because it support comments, is a bit easier to read than JSON, and I am going to be working in these files a lot) with C++ and yaml-cpp (https://github.com/jbeder/yaml-cpp) seems like the most popular library for dealing with it however I am running into an issue when using pointers.
Here is my code:
struct InventoryItem { std::string name; int baseValue; float weight; }; struct Inventory { float maximumWeight; std::vector<InventoryItem*> items; }; namespace YAML { template <> struct convert<InventoryItem*> { static Node encode(const InventoryItem* inventoryItem) { Node node; node["name"] = inventoryItem->name; node["baseValue"] = inventoryItem->baseValue; node["weight"] = inventoryItem->weight; return node; } static bool decode(const Node& node, InventoryItem* inventoryItem) { // @todo validation inventoryItem->name = node["name"].as<std::string>(); inventoryItem->baseValue = node["baseValue"].as<int>(); inventoryItem->weight = node["weight"].as<float>(); return true; } }; template <> struct convert<Inventory> { static Node encode(const Inventory& inventory) { Node node; node["maximumWeight"] = inventory.maximumWeight; node["items"] = inventory.items; return node; } static bool decode(const Node& node, Inventory& inventory) { // @todo validation inventory.maximumWeight = node["maximumWeight"].as<float>(); inventory.items = node["items"].as<std::vector<InventoryItem*>>(); return true; } }; } if I just did std::vector<InventoryItem> items and had the encode / decode use InventoryItem& inventoryItem everything works fine however when I use the code above that has it as a pointer, I get the following error from code that is part of the yaml-cpp library:
impl.h(123): error C4700: uninitialized local variable 't' used The code with the error is:
template <typename T> struct as_if<T, void> { explicit as_if(const Node& node_) : node(node_) {} const Node& node; T operator()() const { if (!node.m_pNode) throw TypedBadConversion<T>(node.Mark()); T t; if (convert<T>::decode(node, t)) // NOTE: THIS IS THE LINE THE COMPILER ERROR IS REFERENCING return t; throw TypedBadConversion<T>(node.Mark()); } }; With my relative lack of experience in C++ and not being able to find any documentation for yaml-cpp using pointers, I am not exactly sure what is wrong with my code.
Anyone have any ideas what I need to change with my code?

• I already asked this question on stack overflow, and they got pissed at me, down-voted me and so forth, LOL .... so I'm pretty sure the answer is NO, but I'll try again here anyway just in case..... Is there any way to get the size of a polymorphic object at run-time? I know you can create a virtual function that returns size and overload it for each child class, but I'm trying to avoid that since (a) it takes a virtual function call and I want it to be fast and (b) it's a pain to have to include the size function for every subclass. I figure since each object has a v-table their should be some way since the information is there, but perhaps there is no portable way to do it.

• This is the code I have:
//Create Window     DWORD windowStyle = WS_VISIBLE;     DWORD windowExStyle = WS_EX_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW;     SetThreadDpiAwarenessContext(DPI_AWARENESS_CONTEXT_SYSTEM_AWARE);     RECT client{ 0, 0, 100, 40 };     UINT dpi = GetDpiForSystem();     AdjustWindowRectExForDpi(&client, windowStyle, false, windowExStyle, dpi);     UINT adjustedWidth = client.right - client.left;     UINT adjustedHeight = client.bottom - client.top;     m_hwnd = CreateWindowEx(windowExStyle,                             className.c_str(),                             windowName.c_str(),                             windowStyle,                             CW_USEDEFAULT,                             CW_USEDEFAULT,                             adjustedWidth,                             adjustedHeight,                             nullptr,                             nullptr,                             m_hInstance,                             m_emu     ); The generated window has a client area of 1 pixel in height, even though I'm asking for 40. so I'm always getting 39 pixel less than what I need...can someone help me with this? x_x

• I've spent quite a while (and probably far longer than I actually should) trying to design an allocator system.  I've bounced ideas around to various people in the past, but never really gotten something satisfactory.
Basically, the requirements I'm trying to target are:
Composability -- allocators that seamlessly allocate from memory allocated by other allocators.  This helps me to do things like, for example, write an allocator that pads allocations from its parent allocator with bit patterns to detect heap corruption.  It also allows me to easily create spillovers, or optionally assert on overflow with specialized fallbacks.   Handling the fact that some allocators have different interfaces than others in an elegant way.  For example, a regular allocator might have Allocate/Deallocate, but a linear allocator can't do itemized deallocation (but can deallocate everything at once).   I want to be able to tell how much I've allocated, and how much of that is actually being used.  I also want to be able to bucket that on subsystem, but as far as I can tell, that doesn't really impact the design outside of adding a new parameter to allocate calls. Note:  I'm avoiding implementation of allocation buckets and alignment from this, since it's largely orthogonal to what I'm asking and can be done with any of the designs.

To meet those three requirements, I've come up with the following solutions, all of which have significant drawbacks.
Static Policy-Based Allocators
I originally built this off of this talk.
Examples;
struct AllocBlock { std::byte* ptr; size_t size; }; class Mallocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); void Deallocate(AllocBlock blk); }; template <typename BackingAllocator, size_t allocSize> class LinearAllocator : BackingAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator() : baseMemory(BackingAllocator::Allocate(allocSize)) { /* stuff */ } AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); }; template <typename BackingAllocator, size_t allocSize> class PoolAllocator : BackingAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* currentHead; public: PoolAllocator() : baseMemory(BackingAllocator::Allocate(allocSize)) { /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); // note the different signature. void Deallocate(void*); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator<Mallocator, size>; Advantages:
SFINAE gives me a pseudo-duck-typing thing.  I don't need any kind of common interfaces, and I'll get a compile-time error if I try to do something like create a LinearAllocator backed by a PoolAllocator. It's composable. Disadvantages:
Composability is type composability, meaning every allocator I create has an independent chain of compositions.  This makes tracking memory usage pretty hard, and presumably can cause me external fragmentation issues.  I might able to get around this with some kind of singleton kung-fu, but I'm unsure as I don't really have any experience with them. Owing to the above, all of my customization points have to be template parameters because the concept relies on empty constructors.  This isn't a huge issue, but it makes defining allocators cumbersome. Dynamic Allocator Dependency
This is probably just the strategy pattern, but then again everything involving polymorphic type composition looks like the strategy pattern to me. 😃
Examples:
struct AllocBlock { std::byte* ptr; size_t size; }; class Allocator { virtual AllocBlock Allocate(size_t) = 0; virtual void Deallocate(AllocBlock) = 0; }; class Mallocator : Allocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); void Deallocate(AllocBlock blk); }; class LinearAllocator { Allocator* backingAllocator; AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator(Allocator* backingAllocator, size_t allocSize) : backingAllocator(backingAllocator) { baseMemory = backingAllocator->Allocate(allocSize); /* stuff */ } AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); }; class PoolAllocator { Allocator* backingAllocator; AllocBlock baseMemory; char* currentHead; public: PoolAllocator(Allocator* backingAllocator, size_t allocSize) : backingAllocator(backingAllocator) { baseMemory = backingAllocator->Allocate(allocSize); /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); // note the different signature. void Deallocate(void*); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator(someGlobalMallocator, size); There's an obvious problem with the above:  Namely that PoolAllocator and LinearAllocator don't inherit from the generic Allocator interface.  They can't, because their interfaces provide different semantics.  There's to ways I can solve this:
Inherit from Allocator anyway and assert on unsupported operations (delegates composition failure to runtime errors, which I'd rather avoid).   As above:  Don't inherit and just deal with the fact that some composability is lost (not ideal, because it means you can't do things like back a pool allocator with a linear allocator) As for the overall structure, I think it looks something like this:
Memory usage tracking is easy, since I can use the top-level mallocator(s) to keep track of total memory allocated, and all of the leaf allocators to track of used memory.  How to do that in particular is outside the scope of what I'm asking about, but I've got some ideas. I still have composability Disadvantages:
The interface issues above.  There's no duck-typing-like mechanism to help here, and I'm strongly of the opinion that programmer errors in construction like that should fail at compile-time, not runtime. Composition on Allocated Memory instead of Allocators
This is probably going to be somewhat buggy and poorly thought, since it's just an idea rather than something I've actually tried.
Examples:
struct AllocBlock { void* ptr; size_t size; std::function<void()> dealloc; } class Mallocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size) { void* ptr = malloc(size); return {ptr, size, [ptr](){ free(ptr); }}; } }; class LinearAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator(AllocBlock baseMemory) : baseMemory(baseMemory) {end = ptr = baseMemory.ptr;} AllocBlock Allocate(size_t); }; class PoolAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* head; public: PoolAllocator(AllocBlock baseMemory) : baseMemory(baseMemory) { /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator(someGlobalMallocator.Allocate(size)); I don't really like this design at first blush, but I haven't really tried it.

"Composable", since we've delegated most of what composition entails into the memory block rather than the allocator. Tracking memory is a bit more complex, but I *think* it's still doable. Disadvantages:
Makes the interface more complex, since we have to allocate first and then pass that block into our "child" allocator. Can't do specialized deallocation (i.e. stack deallocation) since the memory blocks don't know anything about their parent allocation pool.  I might be able to get around this though.
I've done a lot of research against all of the source-available engines I can find, and it seems like most of them either have very small allocator systems or simply don't try to make them composable at all (CryEngine does this, for example).  That said, it seems like something that should have a lot of good examples, but I can't find a whole lot.  Does anyone have any good feedback/suggestions on this, or is composability in general just a pipe dream?

• Hi
I’ve been working on a game engine for years and I’ve recently come back to it after a couple of years break.  Because my engine uses DirectX9.0c I thought maybe it would be a good idea to upgrade it to DX11. I then installed Windows 10 and starting tinkering around with the engine trying to refamiliarise myself with all the code.
It all seems to work ok in the new OS but there’s something I’ve noticed that has caused a massive slowdown in frame rate. My engine has a relatively sophisticated terrain system which includes the ability to paint roads onto it, ala CryEngine. The roads are spline curves and built up with polygons matching the terrain surface. It used to work perfectly but I’ve noticed that when I’m dynamically adding the roads, which involves moving the spline curve control points around the surface of the terrain, the frame rate comes to a grinding halt.
There’s some relatively complex processing going on each time the mouse moves - the road either side of the control point(s) being moved, is reconstructed in real time so you can position and bend the road precisely. On my previous OS, which was Win2k Pro, this worked really smoothly and in release mode there was barely any slow down in frame rate, but now it’s unusable. As part of the road reconstruction, I lock the vertex and index buffers and refill them with the new values so my question is, on windows 10 using DX9, is anyone aware of any locking issues? I’m aware that there can be contention when locking buffers dynamically but I’m locking with LOCK_DISCARD and this has never been an issue before.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

• 18
• 11
• 16
• 9
• 49
• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
631395
• Total Posts
2999780
×