I was wondering how it would do arbitrary-sized kernels without dynamic allocation (my guess was that it would use the input/output buffer as a temporary storage). The answer is that there's a _slight_ asterix to the 'zero-allocation' - the allocation is on the stack [0], but it's small-ish (2kb) and fixed size. So in an embedded context you'd just want to make sure you have headroom for this.
It's interesting. On embedded, heap allocation is usually not done. If it is, it's permanent- free does nothing. Not always the case, you can enable a real alloc/free algorithm, but usually you don't need to free so it doesn't matter. The stack, though... If you take 2KB of stack and you haven't linked that much in, good luck trying to find that "bug" for why everything gets corrupted/crashes. My point here isn't that 2KB is big for embedded, it's actually that I'd prefer it just either statically allocates the memory or uses the heap so I can at least get an "out of memory" error
Quite nice. Although, it seems to be making some pretty interesting assumptions. For example, most operations seem to assume ARGB inputs are premultiplied-alpha and will call PLUTOFILTER_UNPREMULTIPLY_PIXEL.
The benefit of single-header, specifically, is that it's super easy to integrate with any project. You don't need to mess with your build system, or the library's build system, just include the file and you're good to go.
No allocation is useful for embedded / resource constrained targets.
Both the single header and the zero-allocation callouts can be desirable qualities for something used in an embedded (as in classical MCU-shaped) context.
edit: Seeing that it's also C99 makes me think that embedded applications might be what this was geared toward.
It fills the lightweight niche. You can build it on Windows without needing to drag in all of msys. I can see this as really useful for toy projects and demos.
I'm not sure why walking is an advantage over a hot air balloon. /s
Try to understand that "advantage" can mean different things to different people. Your perspective and usecases might be totally opposite from someone else, and that doesn't mean either of you are wrong.
I was wondering how it would do arbitrary-sized kernels without dynamic allocation (my guess was that it would use the input/output buffer as a temporary storage). The answer is that there's a _slight_ asterix to the 'zero-allocation' - the allocation is on the stack [0], but it's small-ish (2kb) and fixed size. So in an embedded context you'd just want to make sure you have headroom for this.
[0] https://github.com/sammycage/plutofilter/blob/main/plutofilt...
It's interesting. On embedded, heap allocation is usually not done. If it is, it's permanent- free does nothing. Not always the case, you can enable a real alloc/free algorithm, but usually you don't need to free so it doesn't matter. The stack, though... If you take 2KB of stack and you haven't linked that much in, good luck trying to find that "bug" for why everything gets corrupted/crashes. My point here isn't that 2KB is big for embedded, it's actually that I'd prefer it just either statically allocates the memory or uses the heap so I can at least get an "out of memory" error
Well done and great with all the examples. Kind of wish I had a use case for this already, but I probably have :)
Wow
Really easy to add it into an existing project,
Written in C99...
Great job!
Congratulation! Great work! I really like his PlutoVG, LunaSVG and PlutoSVG.
Quite nice. Although, it seems to be making some pretty interesting assumptions. For example, most operations seem to assume ARGB inputs are premultiplied-alpha and will call PLUTOFILTER_UNPREMULTIPLY_PIXEL.
I'm not sure why single-header is an advantage over powerful libraries such as GEGL.
The benefit of single-header, specifically, is that it's super easy to integrate with any project. You don't need to mess with your build system, or the library's build system, just include the file and you're good to go.
No allocation is useful for embedded / resource constrained targets.
Both the single header and the zero-allocation callouts can be desirable qualities for something used in an embedded (as in classical MCU-shaped) context.
edit: Seeing that it's also C99 makes me think that embedded applications might be what this was geared toward.
It fills the lightweight niche. You can build it on Windows without needing to drag in all of msys. I can see this as really useful for toy projects and demos.
It's sort of like how a clean organized desk is an advantage to some but a hindrance to others....
or ImageMagick, or plenty of others, with SIMD, GPU, etc. support.
easy to test and integrate to your project.
I'm not sure why walking is an advantage over a hot air balloon. /s
Try to understand that "advantage" can mean different things to different people. Your perspective and usecases might be totally opposite from someone else, and that doesn't mean either of you are wrong.
Any SIMD/multicore capabilities?
nice, like Blend model