Restore eglDestroySurface #327
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
|
Good find. It shows that after 10 years, there's nothing quite so enduring as temporary code. Ha. As to why it was commented out, I'm not sure myself. It seems like an early commit in this project's life. Neither the commit nor code comment explain the reason for it to have been commented-out, so your experience of memory leaks being solved is good enough for me. |
Member
|
Also, hello fellow Hamiltonian |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the native WebGLRenderingContext's dispose method, the EGL surface that was created on initialization is never destroyed, causing memory leaks. This is due to the commit below from 2015:
f9ab889 - workaround to fix repeated context creation, leaks surfaces for now
This PR uncomments
eglDestroySurface(DISPLAY, surface);It's hard to guess why this was done originally, perhaps it was related to context resizing code that was committed at the time. Uncommenting it solved my memory leaks though :)