Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
After a first analysis of this patch and the bug description, we cannot accept
this patch.
The opj_codec_private_t struct is private to avoid to expose the internal struct.
If I well understand the problem is memory take by openjpeg to decode or encode
a file ?
If you need we can discuss about how to used your memory function through
OPJ_MALLOC/OPJ_FREE
Original comment by savmick...@gmail.com
on 13 Jan 2014 at 9:55
Correct me,
You want set your malloc/calloc/free functions and give to openjpeg your
user_data ?
Original comment by savmick...@gmail.com
on 13 Jan 2014 at 10:27
Original comment by mathieu.malaterre
on 25 Feb 2014 at 2:19
Original comment by mathieu.malaterre
on 25 Feb 2014 at 2:19
Is this the only patch needed in current openjpeg trunk ? I'd like to get this
merged for openjpeg 2.1.0, but would hate to introduced a half-baked feature.
Has it been tested somewhere ?
Original comment by mathieu.malaterre
on 4 Mar 2014 at 10:47
Mickael - The overall plan is to add a new void pointer (ctx) within
opj_codec_private_t to provide the memory hook. Users would then call either
opj_create_decompress(OPJ_CODEC_FORMAT p_format, void * ctx) or
opj_create_compress(OPJ_CODEC_FORMAT p_format, void * ctx) accordingly.
I wanted it to work in the same way that opj_event_mgr_t works so instead of
callbacks for error/info/warning you would have malloc/calloc/realloc/free.
However, for the event handler there are quite a few areas in the code marked
TODO where an fprintf is used instead because the event handler is not visible.
The patch above is the first step to make the codec visible internally and
hence will ultimately resolve the current issue with the event handler as well.
Mathieu - The patch above is just the first step as outlined in the ghostscript
bug listed above. It has been regression tested using the ghostscript test
files.
Original comment by slmis...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2014 at 10:50
Ok, will upload as-is.
Original comment by mathieu.malaterre
on 7 Mar 2014 at 9:43
This issue was closed by revision r2609.
Original comment by mathieu.malaterre
on 7 Mar 2014 at 9:44
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
slmis...@gmail.com
on 12 Jan 2014 at 3:52Attachments: