-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 711
Clamp abyss policy for filter3x3
#2874
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
RunDevelopment
wants to merge
5
commits into
image-rs:main
Choose a base branch
from
RunDevelopment:clamp-filter3x3
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+31
−12
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
502883e
Clamp abyss policy for `filter3x3`
RunDevelopment 5ac2263
Merge branch 'main' into clamp-filter3x3
RunDevelopment 448d8d6
Merge branch 'main' into clamp-filter3x3
RunDevelopment 8c6969e
Unsigned tippy taps
RunDevelopment cc0b53b
Fix index overflow with assert
RunDevelopment File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Regarding slowness, do you mean it would be better to handle the near-border in a separate loop? If so, do you want to do that in a follow-up PR or did you intend that comment to be a blocker? I'm fine with either.
In an case, the cast to
isizeis suspicious here after the fix. The only use is with typeu32inget_pixeland we have ful control over the type oftapswhich is a local. It seems rather wasteful to supposeisizefor what is a tri-state bool, no?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Definitely follow-up PR. This PR changes behavior, so I can't just add a benchmark and say "it's 2x faster now," since the before and after don't do the same thing.
It's not any more sus than before IMO. But we could change tabs to go 0,1,2 instead of -1,0,1 and then subtract 1. I.e.
(x + a).saturating_sub(1).min(width - 1). This makes the clamping less explicit, but it's probably fine.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, this exposes an overflow case when
x = u32::MAX(previous>= i32::MAXon 32-bit targets). It's good to handle / fail that the same regardless of platform.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well,
x = u32::MAXisn't possible becausex < width, butx = u32::MAX - 1overflows so your point stands.I think I'll just add an assert
width < u32::MAX. Same for height. Not supporting images that large is probably fine.Alternatively, we could also handle
x=0separately. This would also turn thesaturating_sub(1)into a simple- 1and allow us to writex - 1 + a(underflow and overflow impossible). But I don't want to write that code, because unrolling the nested loops in that way is going to be annoying.