On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Nicolas Martin <nicolas0martin at gmail.com> wrote: > Le vendredi 31 d?cembre 2010 ? 14:11 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug a ?crit : >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Gernot Hassenpflug >> <aikishugyo at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Nicolas Martin >> > <nicolas0martin at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Le vendredi 31 d?cembre 2010 ? 02:55 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug a ?crit : >> >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Robert Krawitz <rlk at alum.mit.edu> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:41:10 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >>> >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Gerard Klaver <gerard.klaver at >> >>> >> xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 01:29 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> >>> >>>> Dear all, >> >>> >>>> I have been involved in trying to support the Canoscan 9000F, and >> >>> >>>> the >> >>> >>>> testing community has grown to about 15 individuals. A few of them >> >>> >>>> have programming knowledge and tonight one individual send in >> >>> >>>> corrected code to handle the final hurdle: correctly aligning the >> >>> >>>> sub-images in the 9600dpi TPU mode. So the scanner is now supported >> >>> >>>> for all modes. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> However, for large images at both 4800dpi and 9600dpi modes, it >> >>> >>>> seems >> >>> >>>> the max size of the image is limited in some way, so that only a >> >>> >>>> section of the desired image is delivered. Is this something that >> >>> >>>> can >> >>> >>>> be set in the individual driver files (like pixma_mp150.c) or in >> >>> >>>> some >> >>> >>>> of the generic pixma driver .c or .h files (which I do not want to >> >>> >>>> touch if possible)? I don't see a problem in the linesize or >> >>> >>>> dimensions, only in the image_size value seen by [pixma] debugging >> >>> >>>> output. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Best regards, >> >>> >>>> Gernot Hassenpflug >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> -- >> >>> >>>> sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org >> >>> >>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel >> >>> >>>> Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" >> >>> >>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> One possible solution (if not yet done), is to check the declaration >> >>> >>> of >> >>> >>> the ?image_size parameter, for a 9600 dpi A4 scan (color) size is >> >>> >>> about >> >>> >>> 550 000 000 000 bytes. (long long is needed) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Hi, thank you for that. I see that image_size is currently declared as >> >>> >> "unsigned". I imagine that changing the declaration will need to be >> >>> >> checked in all places where the calculations using image_size are >> >>> >> done, or not? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Currently, from the report I obtain from a test user, a 4800x4800dpi >> >>> >> image with >> >>> >> >> >>> >> dimensions: 32824 px (width) * 47248 px (height) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> should have a image_size of 4652605056 bytes (W*H*3 for channel >> >>> >> number) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> whereas the actual image_size used is 357637760 bytes (approximately >> >>> >> 341.1 MiB). I am still trying to ascertain whether for some reason the >> >>> >> wrong calculation for image_size might have been made, but certainly >> >>> >> the width and height are correctly there. >> >>> > >> >>> > 32824 * 47248 * 3 - 357637760 = 4294967296 >> >>> > >> >>> > which is exactly 2^32. ?So that suggests exactly the problem described >> >>> > above. >> >>> >> >>> Ah! I suspected it was that, but forgot I had to take the difference >> >>> to get this number. Fantastic! Well, that sounds like somewhat of a >> >>> issue then for the SANE Canon maintainer to comment on. I guess this >> >>> issue had to come up eventually. >> >> >> >> Should be possible to extend the image size in pixma backend by >> >> declaring uint64_t instead of unsigned the following variables: >> >> >> >> image_byte_read (in pixma.c), >> >> image_size (in pixma.h) >> >> cur_image_size (in pixma_common.h) >> >> >> >> Debug statements should also to be adjusted, %llu instead of %u in the >> >> different format strings, although this gives a compilation warning >> >> anyway, as the gcc compile statement uses the -pedantic flag. >> >> >> >> Unless someone has a better solution for sprintf 64 bits integers ? >> >> >> >> Anyway, could you give a try on 9000F with those changes ?
Happy new year to you all! More changes were needed in pixma.c, pixma.h, pixma_common.c (as well as those in pixma_common.h), and in pixma_mp150.c to handle the calculations with uint64_t. Some more variables needed to be declared as either uint64_t, or in one case as long instead of int. I still need to follow through on those changes in pixma_mp750.c also. I had a report that %lu might be better than %llu for the debug statements, so I would like to confirm that %llu was not a typing error? Should I use %llu or %lu for the debug statements when uint64_t is the declared type? >> It seems that fix has not broken anything yet (stil awaiting results >> from testers on how large images go). However, I have a report from a >> tester that might be of interest: >> >> "I also replaced a memcpy() by a memmove() because the areas are >> overlapping. The spec says that memcpy should not be used for >> overlapping regions, and in recent glibc versions code relying on this >> behaviour doesn't work any more. (Valgrind reported this.)" >> >> This is the line near the end of ?the post_process_image_data funtion >> in pixma_mp150.c: >> >> ? ? ? ? /* Crop line to selected borders */ >> ? ? ? ? memmove(cptr, sptr + cx, cw); >> >> I have this in my code now, and it seems not to break my scans with >> MP460, MP960, MP810, CS8800F. Nicolas, do you have a comment on this? > > > This line is also part of the crop enhancement code proposed, that was > committed in January. Yet, I did not investigate deeply how it works, > but the memmove in this case is certainly better if zones overlap, > although I did not notice any problems by myself with memcpy. > > So I'll change this statement to memmove. > > One point is that overlapping should not occur here, as line buffer > sizes in post_process_image_data() should be large enough to not overlap > when rearranging the pixels. If overlap occurs with this statement, this > is potentially another buggy area ... Thanks for that information. Regards, Gernot
