On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27 March 2016 at 20:23, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta@gmail.com> wrote:
> The max resolution I tried which passed the tests was greater than 65535,
> hmm. Am I missing something?
>
What were the dimensions you tried that succeeded exactly? 13k x 13k @
24bpp would mean an allocation of about 640 MiB, which is a
considerable part of the 2 GiB address space you get (by default) as a
32-bit process. It's perhaps not quite large enough that it's
guaranteed to fail, but I don't think it's all that surprising if
there no contiguous allocation of that size available.

I used a trial-and-error approach to find upto which resolution I could load a texture (around 12K x 12K which worked), which, as it seems, is not the correct way. That value is dependent on the hardware capabilities and fragmentation state which isn't generic enough to be considered as a hard limit on the bitmap size.

Thanks for explaining about UINT_MAX for the buffer allocation! I'll include this as a check before loading the bitmap.

Cheers,

Aaryaman