Skip to content

layers: Do not remove substates on Destroy #11501

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
artem-lunarg wants to merge 1 commit into from
+4 −5
Closed

layers: Do not remove substates on Destroy #11501

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 4 additions & 5 deletions layers/state_tracker/cmd_buffer_state.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Copyright (c) 2015-2025 The Khronos Group Inc.
* Copyright (c) 2015-2025 Valve Corporation
* Copyright (c) 2015-2025 LunarG, Inc.
* Copyright (C) 2015-2025 Google Inc.
/* Copyright (c) 2015-2026 The Khronos Group Inc.
* Copyright (c) 2015-2026 Valve Corporation
* Copyright (c) 2015-2026 LunarG, Inc.
* Copyright (C) 2015-2026 Google Inc.
* Copyright (c) 2025 Arm Limited.
* Modifications Copyright (C) 2020 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.
* Modifications Copyright (C) 2022 RasterGrid Kft.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -344,7 +344,6 @@ void CommandBuffer::Destroy() {
for (auto &item : sub_states_) {
item.second->Destroy();
}
sub_states_.clear();
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@spencer-lunarg spencer-lunarg Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about in Pipeline::Destroy()?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@artem-lunarg artem-lunarg Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please clarify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@artem-lunarg artem-lunarg Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So currently we have use case with command buffers, it depends on the logic probably if other state object might need this (command buffers we referenced via shares ptr and used after deletion). This results in hard crash so if other objects have such scenarios it will be hard to miss

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@spencer-lunarg spencer-lunarg Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we now not clear here, but only for pipeline?

I can't tell if this is an issue due to just how Command Buffers (and queues) are the only state we have that we don't derive from CoreChecks

Is it because these are dispatchable handles

I guess if we are clearing it in Pipelines, but not here, curious what is the "rule" to follow

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@artem-lunarg artem-lunarg Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe ideally to have logic that doesn’t need this but syncval relied on this before, so this just gets old behavior (that’s regression after substates)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@artem-lunarg artem-lunarg Jan 16, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we now not clear here, but only for pipeline?

Ah, I see, indeed. Not sure why we cleared only for command buffers and pipelines and not for others.

StateObject::Destroy();
}

Expand Down