We are currently migrating Bugzilla to GitHub issues.
Any changes made to the bug tracker now will be lost, so please do not post new bugs or make changes to them.
When we're done, all bug URLs will redirect to their equivalent location on the new bug tracker.

Bug 2166

Summary: SDL_RenderInfo doesn't contain video memory size similar to old SDL_VideoInfo
Product: SDL Reporter: Ellie <etc0de>
Component: renderAssignee: Sam Lantinga <slouken>
Status: RESOLVED ABANDONED QA Contact: Sam Lantinga <slouken>
Severity: normal    
Priority: P2    
Version: 2.0.0   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   

Description Ellie 2013-10-20 14:53:11 UTC 
SDL_RenderInfo doesn't contain video memory size similar to old SDL_VideoInfo. This information can be vital for applications which need to load large amount of textures and which have some sort of dynamic memory management and want to make best use of the available video ram.

There doesn't seem to be any other function which possibly provides this information either. (if there is one then I can't find it on the wiki)
Comment 1 Sam Lantinga 2013-10-21 05:00:55 UTC 
In theory you shouldn't need to do dynamic memory allocation - each driver should do its own video memory management.  Is there a case where you need this functionality?
Comment 2 Ellie 2013-10-21 10:45:21 UTC 
I have a texture manager on top of SDL which loads/unloads textures threaded or scales them down to fit into a certain memory budget. If SDL was to provide me with the actual usable video memory, it would be certainly useful. But if it doesn't, I might also be able to write up my own code for it I suppose.
Comment 3 Sam Lantinga 2013-10-21 17:28:55 UTC 
It's not a problem to add, I was just curious what the use case was.

Thanks!
Comment 4 Sam Lantinga 2017-08-15 05:19:40 UTC 
Did you end up making an implementation for this? We can add it to SDL if you have a patch.
Comment 5 Ryan C. Gordon 2018-08-06 21:20:21 UTC 
Hello, and sorry if you're getting dozens of copies of this message by email.

We are closing out bugs that appear to be abandoned in some form. This can happen for lots of reasons: we couldn't reproduce it, conversation faded out, the bug was noted as fixed in a comment but we forgot to mark it resolved, the report is good but the fix is impractical, we fixed it a long time ago without realizing there was an associated report, etc.

Individually, any of these bugs might have a better resolution (such as WONTFIX or WORKSFORME or INVALID) but we've added a new resolution of ABANDONED to make this easily searchable and make it clear that it's not necessarily unreasonable to revive a given bug report.

So if this bug is still a going concern and you feel it should still be open: please feel free to reopen it! But unless you respond, we'd like to consider these bugs closed, as many of them are several years old and overwhelming our ability to prioritize recent issues.

(please note that hundred of bug reports were sorted through here, so we apologize for any human error. Just reopen the bug in that case!)

Thanks,
--ryan.