SharpDX.dll issue when constructing a VertexBufferBinding with 0 stride. about sharpdx HOT 3 CLOSED

I doubt you can create a VertexBufferBinding with a stride of 0. Doesn't make sense. Either you don't have any vertex buffer, so you should not set a binding and if you have one, you have necessarily a stride > 0

from sharpdx.

Sure, it's not valid. But it's possible to make the mistake as I did when I copied in some code from another project. And in that case, would it be better if an exception was thrown if stride <=0. I guess I'd like to see some better error detection there. Because with stride = 0, the program will run, not render the geometry, and prevent graphics diagnostics from catching data.

You guys know a lot more about the situation than I do, so if you think it's not a problem, no worries.

from sharpdx.

I see. Well, the original rule in SharpDX was to expose the native API almost as-is in order to get maximum performance and not to expose a sanitized native API. As you know, the native runtime - Direct3D11 for example - is already making lots of checks of parameters consistency and SharpDX rely almost exclusively on this. What is unfortunate in your case is that the native runtime is not checking this.

Should we provide such a check? Personally, I'm not really inclined for several reasons. We would have to go through all signatures, check if a parameter is already checked by the native runtime, if not we would have to add a check and throw an exception. In the case of the stride, the parameter to check is even an indirect parameter, as for the native API, the stride is stored in a int array.How much we would have to follow indirect references like this to check parameters? I would argue that the API to blame is Direct3D11 for not checking this one. Performance wise also, I wouldn't want the API to be bloated by checks that are most of the time irrelevant for regular usage.

Though there are some places in the code where we can perform this kind of checks, I agree that it is not always consistent, but again, I'm fine to make some sacrifice of safety over performance.

from sharpdx.