2015-09-01 12:07:39 -0600 | received badge | ● Nice Question (source) |
2013-10-18 14:34:33 -0600 | asked a question | Any consideration for a D language version of OpenCV? Hey, I've been really digging into the D language and I feel that OpenCV could benefit a lot from its features. I was wondering if there's any interest in creating a D port of OpenCV? |
2013-04-18 02:03:58 -0600 | received badge | ● Editor (source) |
2013-04-18 01:33:10 -0600 | received badge | ● Student (source) |
2013-04-18 01:22:35 -0600 | asked a question | Why doesn't OpenCV complain when you address out of bounds? I just spent half a day debugging a very large problem for a memory issue. The memory issue was weird for a lot of reasons, to the point that guys on #c++ where saying, "I dunno man, that's ... weird." What was happening, I found after a lot of valgrind and gdb, is that I was able to address outside of the space of Mat. Here's the code in question that caused the problem: See what might cause the problem? Here's the simple fix I was looking for: Might be a bit ambiguous, but dripped_img and line_img are related. This means that when I iterate through dripped_img and stored into line_img, if those columns don't match, whoops. Total logic error on my part, I know. However, what was weird was how little error reporting happened when I did this. What I saw the error as was a function which segfaulted on return. I'm of the mind you should be able to direct-index past the bounds of the Matrix, though. Is there a reason why this behaviour is allowed in OpenCV? EDIT: I said "direct-index" makes sense. But I was using Mat.at(). Maybe that needs some checking. |