I am learning OpenGL from this tutorial.
My question is about the specification in general, not about a specific function or topic.
When seeing code like the following:
glGenBuffers(1, &positionBufferObject);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, positionBufferObject);
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertexPositions), vertexPositions, GL_STATIC_DRAW);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0);
I'm confused about the utility of calling the bind functions before and after setting the buffer data.
It seems superfluous to me, due to my inexperience with OpenGL and Computer Graphics in general.
The man page says that:
glBindBuffer lets you create or use a named buffer object. Calling glBindBuffer with target set to
GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, GL_PIXEL_PACK_BUFFER or GL_PIXEL_UNPACK_BUFFER and buffer set to the
name of the new buffer object binds the buffer object name to the target. When a buffer object is bound to a
target, the previous binding for that target is automatically broken.
What exactly is the concept/utility of 'binding' something to a 'target' ?
the commands in opengl don't exist in isolation. they assume the existence of a context. one way to think of this is that there is, hidden in the background, an opengl object, and the functions are methods on that object.
so when you call a function, what it does depends on the arguments, of course, but also on the internal state of opengl - on the context/object.
this is very clear with bind, which says "set this as the current X". then later functions modify the "current X" (where X might be buffer, for example). [update:] and as you say, the thing that is being set (the attribute in the object, or the "data member") is the first argument to bind. so GL_ARRAY_BUFFER names a particular thing that you are setting.
and to answer the second part of the question - setting it to 0 simply clears the value so you don't accidentally make unplanned changes elsewhere.
The OpenGL technique can be incredibly opaque and confusing. I know! I've been writing 3D engines based upon OpenGL for years (off and on). In my case part of the problem is, I write the engine to hide the underlying 3D API (OpenGL), so once I get something working I never see the OpenGL code again.
But here is one technique that helps my brain comprehend the "OpenGL way". I think this way of thinking about it is true (but not the whole story).
Think about the hardware graphics/GPU cards. They have certain capabilities implemented in hardware. For example, the GPU may only be able to update (write) one texture at a time. Nonetheless, it is mandatory that the GPU contain many textures within the RAM inside the GPU, because transfer between CPU memory and GPU memory is very slow.
So what the OpenGL API does is to create the notion of an "active texture". Then when we call an OpenGL API function to copy an image into a texture, we must do it this way:
1: generate a texture and assign its identifier to an unsigned integer variable.
2: bind the texture to the GL_TEXTURE bind point (or some such bind point).
3: specify the size and format of the texture bound to GL_TEXTURE target.
4: copy some image we want on the texture to the GL_TEXTURE target.
And if we want to draw an image on another texture, we must repeat that same process.
When we are finally ready to render something on the display, we need our code to make one or more of the textures we created and copied images upon to become accessible by our fragment shader.
As it turns out, the fragment shader can access more than one texture at a time by accessing multiple "texture units" (one texture per texture unit). So, our code must bind the textures we want to make available to the texture units our fragment shaders expect them bound to.
So we must do something like this:
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE0);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture0);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE1);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture1);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE2);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture2);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE3);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture3);
Now, I must say that I love OpenGL for many reasons, but this approach drive me CRAZY. That's because all the software I have written for years would look like this instead:
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE0, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture0);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE1, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture1);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE2, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture2);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE3, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture3);
Bamo. No need for setting all this state over and over and over again. Just specify which texture-unit to attach the texture to, plus the texture-type to indicate how to access the texture, plus the ID of the texture I want to attach to the texture unit.
I also wouldn't need to bind a texture as the active texture to copy an image to it, I would just give the ID of the texture I wanted to copy to. Why should it need to be bound?
Well, there's the catch that forces OpenGL to be structured in the crazy way it is. Because the hardware does some things, and the software driver does other things, and because what is done where is a variable (depends on GPU card), they need some way to keep the complexity under control. Their solution is essentially to have only one bind point for each kind of entity/object, and to require we bind our entities to those bind points before we call functions that manipulate them. And as a second purpose, binding entities is what makes them available to the GPU, and our various shaders that execute in the GPU.
At least that's how I keep the "OpenGL way" straight in my head. Frankly, if someone really, really, REALLY understands all the reasons OpenGL is (and must be) structured the way it is, I'd love them to post their own reply. I believe this is an important question and topic, and the rationale is rarely if ever described at all, much less in a manner that my puny brain can comprehend.
From the section Introduction: What is OpenGL?
Complex aggregates like structs are never directly exposed in OpenGL. Any such constructs are hidden behind the API. This makes it easier to expose the OpenGL API to non-C languages without having a complex conversion layer.
In C++, if you wanted an object that contained an integer, a float, and a string, you would create it and access it like this:
struct Object
{
int count;
float opacity;
char *name;
};
//Create the storage for the object.
Object newObject;
//Put data into the object.
newObject.count = 5;
newObject.opacity = 0.4f;
newObject.name = "Some String";
In OpenGL, you would use an API that looks more like this:
//Create the storage for the object
GLuint objectName;
glGenObject(1, &objectName);
//Put data into the object.
glBindObject(GL_MODIFY, objectName);
glObjectParameteri(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_COUNT, 5);
glObjectParameterf(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_OPACITY, 0.4f);
glObjectParameters(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_NAME, "Some String");
None of these are actual OpenGL commands, of course. This is simply an example of what the interface to such an object would look like.
OpenGL owns the storage for all OpenGL objects. Because of this, the user can only access an object by reference. Almost all OpenGL objects are referred to by an unsigned integer (the GLuint). Objects are created by a function of the form glGen*, where * is the type of the object. The first parameter is the number of objects to create, and the second is a GLuint* array that receives the newly created object names.
To modify most objects, they must first be bound to the context. Many objects can be bound to different locations in the context; this allows the same object to be used in different ways. These different locations are called targets; all objects have a list of valid targets, and some have only one. In the above example, the fictitious target “GL_MODIFY” is the location where objectName is bound.
This is how most OpenGL objects work, and buffer objects are "most OpenGL objects."
And if that's not good enough, the tutorial covers it again in Chapter 1: Following the Data:
void InitializeVertexBuffer()
{
glGenBuffers(1, &positionBufferObject);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, positionBufferObject);
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertexPositions), vertexPositions, GL_STATIC_DRAW);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0);
}
The first line creates the buffer object, storing the handle to the object in the global variable positionBufferObject. Though the object now exists, it does not own any memory yet. That is because we have not allocated any with this object.
The glBindBuffer function binds the newly-created buffer object to the GL_ARRAY_BUFFER binding target. As mentioned in the introduction, objects in OpenGL usually have to be bound to the context in order for them to do anything, and buffer objects are no exception.
The glBufferData function performs two operations. It allocates memory for the buffer currently bound to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, which is the one we just created and bound. We already have some vertex data; the problem is that it is in our memory rather than OpenGL's memory. The sizeof(vertexPositions) uses the C++ compiler to determine the byte size of the vertexPositions array. We then pass this size to glBufferData as the size of memory to allocate for this buffer object. Thus, we allocate enough GPU memory to store our vertex data.
The other operation that glBufferData performs is copying data from our memory array into the buffer object. The third parameter controls this. If this value is not NULL, as in this case, glBufferData will copy the data referenced by the pointer into the buffer object. After this function call, the buffer object stores exactly what vertexPositions stores.
The fourth parameter is something we will look at in future tutorials.
The second bind buffer call is simply cleanup. By binding the buffer object 0 to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, we cause the buffer object previously bound to that target to become unbound from it. Zero in this cases works a lot like the NULL pointer. This was not strictly necessary, as any later binds to this target will simply unbind what is already there. But unless you have very strict control over your rendering, it is usually a good idea to unbind the objects you bind.
Binding a buffer to a target is something like setting a global variable. Subsequent function calls then operate on that global data. In the case of OpenGL all the "global variables" together form a GL context. Virtually all GL functions read from that context or modify it in some way.
The glGenBuffers() call is sort of like malloc(), allocating a buffer; we set a global to point to it with glBindBuffer(); we call a function that operates on that global (glBufferData()) and then we set the global to NULL so it won't inadvertently operate on that buffer again using glBindBuffer().
OpenGL is what is known as a "state machine," to that end OpenGL has several "binding targets" each of which can only have one thing bound at once. Binding something else replaces the current bind, and thus changes it's state. Thus by binding buffers you are (re)defining the state of the machine.
As a state machine, whatever information you have bound will have an effect on the next output of the machine, in OpenGL that is its next draw-call. Once that is done you could bind new vertex data, bind new pixel data, bind new targets etc then initiate another draw call. If you wanted to create the illusion of movement on your screen, when you were satisfied you had drawn your entire scene (a 3d engine concept, not an OpenGL concept) you'd flip the framebuffer.
Related
I don't understand what the purpose is of binding points (such as GL_ARRAY_BUFFER) in OpenGL. To my understanding glGenBuffers() creates a sort of pointer to a vertex buffer object located somewhere within GPU memory.
So:
glGenBuffers(1, &bufferID)
means I now have a handle, bufferID, to 1 vertex object on the graphics card. Now I know the next step would be to bind bufferID to a binding point
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, bufferID)
so that I can use that binding point to send data down using the glBufferData() function like so:
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(data), data, GL_STATIC_DRAW)
But why couldn't I just use the bufferID to specifiy where I want to send the data instead? Something like:
glBufferData(bufferID, sizeof(data), data, GL_STATIC_DRAW)
Then when calling a draw function I would also just put in which ever ID to whichever VBO I want the draw function to draw. Something like:
glDrawArrays(bufferID, GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3)
Why do we need the extra step of indirection with glBindBuffers?
OpenGL uses object binding points for two things: to designate an object to be used as part of a rendering process, and to be able to modify the object.
Why it uses them for the former is simple: OpenGL requires a lot of objects to be able to render.
Consider your overly simplistic example:
glDrawArrays(bufferID, GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3)
That API doesn't let me have separate vertex attributes come from separate buffers. Sure, you might then propose glDrawArrays(GLint count, GLuint *object_array, ...). But how do you connect a particular buffer object to a particular vertex attribute? Or how do you have 2 attributes come from buffer 0 and a third attribute from buffer 1? Those are things I can do right now with the current API. But your proposed one can't handle it.
And even that is putting aside the many other objects you need to render: program/pipeline objects, texture objects, UBOs, SSBOs, transform feedback objects, query objects, etc. Having all of the needed objects specified in a single command would be fundamentally unworkable (and that leaves aside the performance costs).
And every time the API would need to add a new kind of object, you would have to add new variations of the glDraw* functions. And right now, there are over a dozen such functions. Your way would have given us hundreds.
So instead, OpenGL defines ways for you to say "the next time I render, use this object in this way for that process." That's what binding an object for use means.
But why couldn't I just use the bufferID to specifiy where I want to send the data instead?
This is about binding an object for the purpose of modifying the object, not saying that it will be used. That is... a different matter.
The obvious answer is, "You can't do it because the OpenGL API (until 4.5) doesn't have a function to let you do it." But I rather suspect the question is really why OpenGL doesn't have such APIs (until 4.5, where glNamedBufferStorage and such exist).
Indeed, the fact that 4.5 does have such functions proves that there is no technical reason for pre-4.5 OpenGL's bind-object-to-modify API. It really was a "decision" that came about by the evolution of the OpenGL API from 1.0, thanks to following the path of least resistance. Repeatedly.
Indeed, just about every bad decision that OpenGL has made can be traced back to taking the path of least resistance in the API. But I digress.
In OpenGL 1.0, there was only one kind of object: display list objects. That means that even textures were not stored in objects. So every time you switched textures, you had to re-specify the entire texture with glTexImage*D. That means re-uploading it. Now, you could (and people did) wrap each texture's creation in a display list, which allowed you to switch textures by executing that display list. And hopefully the driver would realize you were doing that and instead allocate video memory and so forth appropriately.
So when 1.1 came around, the OpenGL ARB realized how mind-bendingly silly that was. So they created texture objects, which encapsulate both the memory storage of a texture and the various state within. When you wanted to use the texture, you bound it. But there was a snag. Namely, how to change it.
See, 1.0 had a bunch of already existing functions like glTexImage*D, glTexParamter and the like. These modify the state of the texture. Now, the ARB could have added new functions that do the same thing but take texture objects as parameters.
But that would mean dividing all OpenGL users into 2 camps: those who used texture objects and those who did not. It meant that, if you wanted to use texture objects, you had to rewrite all of your existing code that modified textures. If you had some function that made a bunch of glTexParameter calls on the current texture, you would have to change that function to call the new texture object function. But you would also have to change the function of yours that calls it so that it would take, as a parameter, the texture object that it operates on.
And if that function didn't belong to you (because it was part of a library you were using), then you couldn't even do that.
So the ARB decided to keep those old functions around and simply have them behave differently based on whether a texture was bound to the context or not. If one was bound, then glTexParameter/etc would modify the bound texture, rather than the context's normal texture.
This one decision established the general paradigm shared by almost all OpenGL objects.
ARB_vertex_buffer_object used this paradigm for the same reason. Notice how the various gl*Pointer functions (glVertexAttribPointer and the like) work in relation to buffers. You have to bind a buffer to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, then call one of those functions to set up an attribute array. When a buffer is bound to that slot, the function will pick that up and treat the pointer as an offset into the buffer that was bound at the time the *Pointer function was called.
Why? For the same reason: ease of compatibility (or to promote laziness, depending on how you want to see it). ATI_vertex_array_object had to create new analogs to the gl*Pointer functions. Whereas ARB_vertex_buffer_object just piggybacked off of the existing entrypoints.
Users didn't have to change from using glVertexPointer to glVertexBufferOffset or some other function. All they had to do was bind a buffer before calling a function that set up vertex information (and of course change the pointers to byte offsets).
It also mean that they didn't have to add a bunch of glDrawElementsWithBuffer-type functions for rendering with indices that come from buffer objects.
So this wasn't a bad idea in the short term. But as with most short-term decision making, it starts being less reasonable with time.
Of course, if you have access to GL 4.5/ARB_direct_state_access, you can do things the way they ought to have been done originally.
In order to upload an index buffer to the GPU, I have to call glBindBuffer with GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER then call glBufferData etc. on it.
However, for my engine design where everything is condensed into as few functions as possible this comes unhandy as using GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER with glBindBuffer changes VAO state and I would like to deal with the buffers without changing VAO state.
Can someone tell me if it is possible to allocate and upload an index buffer without touching VAO state? Or would I have to restore GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER state manually?
The following assumes that direct state access functionality is not available to you. If it is, you should just use that, so that you don't have to bind objects just to modify them in the first place.
There is no such thing as an "index buffer" in the OpenGL API. There are just buffer objects, which can be at any point used for any number of purposes (one of which is for vertex indices in a rendering command). No buffer is ever wedded to the notion of being specifically for index data.
Buffer binding points therefore are meaningful only to the degree that you use the functionality associated with those binding points. GL_ARRAY_BUFFER is meaningful only because glVertexAttribPointer calls look at the buffer bound to that binding point. But if you're not actually making a glVertexAttribPointer call, then GL_ARRAY_BUFFER is just a binding point, no different from any other.
For general buffer object management, you therefore can bind any buffer to any binding point. GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, GL_COPY_READ_BUFFER, whatever. If you're not using the binding for its special purpose, then no binding is different from another (except GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BINDING which is part of VAO state).
So just bind the "index buffer" to some innocuous binding point (the indexed ones like GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER are particularly harmless, since they only get special functions when you use glBindBufferRange) and do your upload from there.
When creating a Buffer and setting its data, it is required to bind it first to a target and then populate the buffer bound to that target with some data:
GLenum target = GL_ARRAY_BUFFER;
glGenBuffers(1, &bufferId);
glBindBuffer(target, bufferId);
glBufferData(target, m_capacity*sizeof(value_type), m_data, GL_STREAM_DRAW);
glBindBuffer(target, 0);
But to my understanding it does not really matter if I a buffer that was populated on the GL_ARRAY_BUFFER target is later used on e.g. the GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER target. But if this is the case why do we need the target to populate the buffer and why is the signature of glBufferData not:
void glBufferData( GLint bufferId,
GLsizeiptr size,
const GLvoid * data,
GLenum usage);
Is that just a historical reason or because opengl is a statemachine or do I miss something and the target has an other purpose there.
This is a common OpenGL API thing - most of the work with OpenGL objects (textures, buffers, ...) is done via binding them to a specific target and then using this target to refer to currently bound object (more on this here). Unfortunatelly, I do not know the exact reason for this, but it seems to appear historical now - I've seen some proposed extension for direct object access via object id's (UPD: user ratchet freak says that it is direct_state_access extension, core in 4.5).
The documentation on glBindBuffer says that
When a buffer object is bound to a target, the previous binding for that target is automatically broken.
I'd suppose that changing a buffer's binding type and expecting the buffer's state to stay preserved is not a good idea.
UPDATE
From OpenGL wiki
The target defines how you intend to use this binding of the buffer object. When you're just creating and/or filling the buffer object with data, the target you use doesn't technically matter.
So, it seems that the target matters only on how you use the buffer, and you can safely bind it to any random type and fill it with data, but it still seems to be a bad practice.
To use glBufferData, you need some way of indicating the target of the data you are uploading. The target parameter (the first one), lets this call know the destination for your data. If your only aim is to upload the data and then unbind, as you said, it doesn't really matter which buffer binding you use. You are free to bind that buffer to any other binding at a later time.
However, it quite common to setup vertex attributes during GL_ARRAY_BUFFER data initialization time as well (with glVertexAttribPointer/glEnableVertexArray), which might be another reason to use GL_ARRAY_BUFFER binding over any other arbitrary binding. Also, if you intend to actually use the buffer data you are uploading in a subsequent draw call, and don't need to break the binding, it is more efficient to leave the binding in place.
The buffer currently bound to the GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER target in OpenGL is part of the state contained in a Vertex Array Object (VAO from here on). According to the OpenGL 4.4 core profile spec then, it would seem that attempting to change or access the GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER while no VAO is bound is an error:
10.4 Vertex Array Objects
... An INVALID_OPERATION error is generated by any commands which
modify, draw from, or query vertex array state when no vertex array
is bound. This occurs in the initial GL state, and may occur as a
result of BindVertexArray or a side effect of DeleteVertexArrays.
This is supported by the OpenGL wiki's Buffer Object page:
GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER
All rendering functions of the form gl*Draw*Elements* will use the pointer
field as a byte offset from the beginning of the buffer object bound to this
target. The indices used for indexed rendering will be taken from the buffer
object. Note that this binding target is part of a Vertex Array Objects state,
so a VAO must be bound before binding a buffer here.
Now, it would be nice if this were not the case. It would make it easy to create and manage index buffers separately from any particular VAO. But if just binding a buffer to GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER is verboten when there's no VAO bound, the only alternative is for the class representing an index buffer to bind a dummy VAO when they are created/updated/etc.
Nicol Bolas' excellent OpenGL tutorial says that this type of use is in fact valid:
glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER): Calling this without a VAO bound will not fail.
This seems to contradict the standard and opengl.org wiki. Is there something in the standard supporting this that I've missed, or is this only referring to compatibility profile contexts where using a VAO is not required?
If you have an AMD or NV GPU you can always use the EXT_direct_state_access extension to manipulate a buffer object without binding it (this is purely a driver feature and does not require any special class of hardware). Sadly, Intel, Mesa and Apple have not bothered to implement this extension despite its 5 year existence -- lazy slackers.
Have a look at the following functions, they will make what you are describing a lot easier:
glNamedBufferDataEXT (...)
glNamedBufferSubDataEXT (...)
glMapNamedBufferEXT (...)
glUnmapNamedBufferEXT (...)
Now, since adoption of DSA is sparse, you will probably have to write some fallback code for systems that do not support it. You can reproduce the functionality of DSA by writing functions with identical function signatures that use a dummy VAO to bind VBOs and IBOs for data manipulation on systems that do not support the extension. You will have to keep track of what VAO was bound before you use it, and restore it before said function returns to eliminate side-effects.
In a good engine you should shadow the VAO binding state rather than having to query it from GL. That is, instead of using glBindVertexArray (...) directly you implement a system that wraps that call and therefore always knows what VAO is bound to a particular context. In the end, this makes emulating DSA functionality where driver support does not exist a lot more efficient. If you attempt something like this, you need to be aware that glDelete (...) functions implicitly unbind (by binding 0) the object being deleted if it is bound in the current context.
But if just binding a buffer to GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER is verboten when there's no VAO bound, the only alternative is for the class representing an index buffer to bind a dummy VAO when they are created/updated/etc.
New reply to an old question, but a simple way to work with an index buffer without requiring a VAO (or interfering with the currently bound VAO) is to bind the buffer to a target other than GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER.
For example, instead of this:
glBindVertexArray(vaoID); // ...Do I even have a VAO yet?
glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, indexBufferID); // <- Alters VAO state!
glBufferSubData(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, ...);
-- one might write this instead:
glBindBuffer(GL_COPY_WRITE_BUFFER, indexBufferID);
glBufferSubData(GL_COPY_WRITE_BUFFER, ...);
(Here I arbitrarily used GL_COPY_WRITE_BUFFER, which exists to provide a temporary target to make copying between buffers easier, but most other targets would be fine as well.)
I'm reading along in this tutorial and i get down towards the end in how to use Vertex Buffers and i see that the vertex buffer which I generated and called glBindBuffer on once already i have to bind a second time:
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vbo_triangle);
I'm still very new to openGL (like 3 days) so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how a lot of these things work. I spend most of my time on khronos or opengl.org reading about the commands, but I couldn't figure out why this one gets called twice. any hints? Thanks.
Does that particular example strictly need the second bind? No. OpenGL retains state, so if a buffer object is bound to a target, then it will remain bound until you bind something else to that target.
However, what happens if you insert code after the creation of the buffer that creates a second buffer? After all, you might want to have two objects. Or 10. Or however many you want; they don't have to share buffer objects.
Once you do that, your code breaks because the buffer that your code expects to be bound isn't actually bound. Therefore, unless you're good at managing state and really know what you're doing (and if you're still following tutorials, the answer is "no"), you should set whatever state you need to do what you intend.
Therefore, if you intend to draw from a particular buffer, you should bind it and set the appropriate state (the gl*Pointer calls).
You have to bind and unbind the buffer to copy to it from 'C' and draw with it from openGL.
Think of it as locking/unlocking between the program and the graphics.
So the sequence is
create
bind
stuff data
unbind
bind
display
unbind
Brief : The second one usualy unbinds the first one.
If no buffer object with name buffer exists, one is created with that name. When a buffer object is bound to a target, the previous binding for that target is automatically broken.
Buffer object names are unsigned integers. The value zero is reserved, but there is no default buffer object for each buffer object target. Instead, buffer set to zero effectively unbinds any buffer object previously bound, and restores client memory usage for that buffer object target (if supported for that target). Buffer object names and the corresponding buffer object contents are local to the shared object space of the current GL rendering context; two rendering contexts share buffer object names only if they explicitly enable sharing between contexts through the appropriate GL windows interfaces functions.
Reference : https://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man/html/glBindBuffer.xhtml