These types already implemented the Image interface. They should also
implement the RGBA64Image interface (new in Go 1.17)
Updates #44808
Change-Id: I9a2b13e305997088ae874efb95ad9e1648f94812
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/331570
Trust: Nigel Tao <nigeltao@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Nigel Tao <nigeltao@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org>
Prior to this commit, NewXxx could panic when passed an image.Rectangle
with one of width or height being negative. But it might not panic if
both were negative, because (bpp * w * h) could still be positive. After
this commit, it will panic if both are negative.
With overflow, NewXxx might not have panicked if (bpp * w * h), the
length passed to "make([]uint8, length)", was still non-negative (after
truncation), but even if w and h were valid (non-negative), the overall
byte slice wasn't long enough. Iterating over the pixels would possibly
panic later with index out of bounds. This change moves the panic
earlier, closer to where the mistake is.
Change-Id: I011feb2d53515fc3f0fe72bb6c23b3953772c577
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/230220
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
They were added a very long time ago, as a convenience before Go had
struct literals. Today, it is better to use the zero-valued literal. For
example, the compiler cannot prove that ZP or ZR have not been modified.
Change-Id: I7469f1c751e91bf76fe1eab07b5772eccb5d6405
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/171097
Reviewed-by: Nigel Tao <nigeltao@golang.org>
This is a re-roll of a previous commit,
a855da29db, which was rolled back in
14347ee480.
It was rolled back because it broke a unit test in image/gif. The
image/gif code was fixed by 9ef65dbe06
"image/gif: fix frame-inside-image bounds checking".
The original commit message:
image: fix the overlap check in Rectangle.Intersect.
The doc comment for Rectangle.Intersect clearly states, "If the two
rectangles do not overlap then the zero rectangle will be returned."
Prior to this fix, calling Intersect on adjacent but non-overlapping
rectangles would return an empty but non-zero rectangle.
The fix essentially changes
if r.Min.X > r.Max.X || r.Min.Y > r.Max.Y { etc }
to
if r.Min.X >= r.Max.X || r.Min.Y >= r.Max.Y { etc }
(note that the > signs have become >= signs), but changing that line to:
if r.Empty() { etc }
seems clearer (and equivalent).
Change-Id: I2e3af1f1686064a573b2e513b39246fe60c03631
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/36734
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Nigel Tao <nigeltao@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
The doc comment for Rectangle.Intersect clearly states, "If the two
rectangles do not overlap then the zero rectangle will be returned."
Prior to this fix, calling Intersect on adjacent but non-overlapping
rectangles would return an empty but non-zero rectangle.
The fix essentially changes
if r.Min.X > r.Max.X || r.Min.Y > r.Max.Y { etc }
to
if r.Min.X >= r.Max.X || r.Min.Y >= r.Max.Y { etc }
(note that the > signs have become >= signs), but changing that line to:
if r.Empty() { etc }
seems clearer (and equivalent).
Change-Id: Ia654e4b9dc805978db3e94d7a9718b6366005360
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/34853
Reviewed-by: David Crawshaw <crawshaw@golang.org>
if their nominal Min and Max points differ.
This is a behavior change, but arguably a bug fix, as Eq wasn't
previously consistent with In, and the concept of a rectangle being a
set of points. This is demonstrated by the new geom_test.go test.
It does mean that r.Eq(s) no longer implies that Inset'ting both r and s
with a negative inset results in two rectangles that are still Eq, but
that seems acceptable to me.
The previous behavior is still available as "r == s".
Also clarify the image.Rect doc comment when the inputs are
non-canonical.
Also simplify the Point and Rectangle Eq implementations dating from
before Go 1.0, when you couldn't compare structs via the == operator.
Change-Id: Ic39e628db31dc5fe5220f4b444e6d5000eeace5b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/5006
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
Nigel Tao
Russ Cox