ash VS project-error-handling

If you want to automate the creation of certain code that will be nested under the src directory, and committed into source control, there are a variety of ways to do that. One option is to create a sub-crate in your project that does the code-gen and you can run it as needed. The ash project is an example of this.

There is also [Vulkano](https://github.com/vulkano-rs/vulkano). It has a safe high level api and lower level layers, all the way down to [ash](https://github.com/ash-rs/ash) which is more or less raw vulkan. It's more explicit and verbose than [wgpu](https://github.com/gfx-rs/wgpu) though, so maybe try wgpu first and see how you like it.

Yes. I use Ash bindings for Vulkan and raw GLSL for shaders. I tried to use spirv-std for shaders—it was really great to have the benefits of Rust (structs, enums, strict type assertions, etc.)—until I needed to use buffer references. Unfortunaly, it is not yet implemented.

This is great, of all the vulkan go bindings I have been waiting for one that uses vk.xml to generate the bindings, because it's the only viable way to keep the bindings up-to-date. (fyi the popular [ash-rs](https://github.com/ash-rs/ash) is created the same-way).

Hi, I am having an issue on pop-os wayland where when I run a vulkan application I get an error symbol lookup error: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnvidia-vulkan-producer.so: undefined symbol: wlEglCreateSurfaceExport I have tested this with https://github.com/ash-rs/ash running the triangle example.

Nice and simple. Its quite portable too. But simplicity and ease of use come with some limitations. Ash is much more complex but can extract every bit of power from your card if needed. Wgpu-rs github comes with many examples and you can find a really nice tutorial here

low level vulkan bindings

Glium and ash provide low level access to different common graphics api's. I'm sure there's a good directx-11/12 bindings as well but I'm unfamiliar with what people use.

fn read_uncompressed_buffer( reader: &mut R, length: usize, // estimated via a seek or other mechanism file_is_little_endian: bool, ) -> Result> { let bytes = length * std::mem::size_of::(); // it is undefined behavior to call read_exact on un-initialized, https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/trait.Read.html#tymethod.read // see also https://github.com/MaikKlein/ash/issues/354#issue-781730580 let mut buffer = vec![0u64, length]; unsafe { // transmute u64 to bytes. let slice = std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut( buffer.as_mut_ptr() as *mut u8, length * std::mem::size_of::(), ); reader.read_exact(slice)?; } if is_native_little_endian() != file_is_little_endian { swap(&mut buffer, file_is_little_endian) } }

// it is undefined behavior to call read_exact on un-initialized, https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/trait.Read.html#tymethod.read // see also https://github.com/MaikKlein/ash/issues/354#issue-781730580 let mut buffer = vec![0u64, length]; unsafe { // transmute u64 to bytes. let slice = std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut( buffer.as_mut_ptr() as *mut u8, length * std::mem::size_of::(), ); reader.read_exact(slice)?; } if is_native_little_endian() != file_is_little_endian { swap(&mut buffer, file_is_little_endian) }

This actually is an example of where the compiler errors could (or should have) maybe provided more help or even the potential solution, it might be worth submitting this to the error handling group.

If anyone's interested in helping to shape the future of Rust's built-in error-handling story, there's an error handling project group that's been doing great work recently, e.g. the major effort to move the Error trait into libcore ( https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/3 ) and stabilizing std::backtrace. You can follow along or get involved via the #project-error-handling channel on the Rust zulip: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/

Getting it into alloc would enable usage in a LOT more contexts, like WASM and kernel code. Does this need a distinct tracking issue outside the ticket for moving it to core or would that just add more administrata?

without trolling https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling exist and is far from having strong conclusion and anyway I will always favor enum Error anyway however I like the idea to have a opaque box in the enum for "this is a opaque error you can't deal with as a user of my api"

IIRC, the Error Handling Project Group is aware of these ideas. If this kind of thing interests you and you want to contribute, you should look into getting involved with that group.

> you should have the underlying message of the std::io::Error

This is a point of debate[1] among the error-handling working group.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/4...

Focusing on good error messages has permeated throughout the community. There's even the Error Handling Project Group if you weren't convinced how committed the language designers are to getting this right. There are a number of techniques we can use to make our errors more informative. Along the way, we will discuss the crates that can help.

The Error Handling Working Group is looking at potential breaking changes for embedded users. Maybe you could work within that group?