Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@Burnside999
Copy link
Contributor

As mentioned in #25853, when doing WarpAffine with Mat and UMat respectively, if you force the use of the in-place operation (so that src and dst are passed the same variables), Mat produces the correct results, but UMat produces unexpected results.

Obviously in-place operations are not possible with this transformation. When Mat performs the operation, if dst and src are the same variable, the function inherently makes a copy of src without telling the user.

CV_Assert( src.cols > 0 && src.rows > 0 );
if( dst.data == src.data )
src = src.clone();

So I did the same check in UMat, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate, should we just do a copy operation without telling the user (even if the user thinks he's doing an in-place operation), or should we throw an exception to indicate that we shouldn't pass in two same variables here?

The possible reason for this problem is that there is a create function here, so it gives the developer the false impression that this create function has allocated new memory for dst, however it does not.

UMat src = _src.getUMat(), M0;
_dst.create( dsize.empty() ? src.size() : dsize, src.type() );
UMat dst = _dst.getUMat();

Because by the time the check is done here, the function has returned back.

if( u && (d == dims || (d == 1 && dims <= 2)) && _type == type() && _usageFlags == usageFlags )
{
for( i = 0; i < d; i++ )
if( size[i] != _sizes[i] )
break;
if( i == d && (d > 1 || size[1] == 1))
return;
}

Pull Request Readiness Checklist

See details at https://github.com/opencv/opencv/wiki/How_to_contribute#making-a-good-pull-request

  • I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
  • To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on a code under GPL or another license that is incompatible with OpenCV
  • The PR is proposed to the proper branch
  • There is a reference to the original bug report and related work
  • There is accuracy test, performance test and test data in opencv_extra repository, if applicable
    Patch to opencv_extra has the same branch name.
  • The feature is well documented and sample code can be built with the project CMake

@mshabunin
Copy link
Contributor

when doing WarpAffine with Mat and UMat respectively, if you force the use of the in-place operation (so that src and dst are passed the same variables), Mat produces the correct results, but UMat produces unexpected results

I think we need a test for this scenario.

@Burnside999
Copy link
Contributor Author

Burnside999 commented Jul 17, 2024

when doing WarpAffine with Mat and UMat respectively, if you force the use of the in-place operation (so that src and dst are passed the same variables), Mat produces the correct results, but UMat produces unexpected results

I think we need a test for this scenario.

Sure. I'll write a test and commit it.

@Burnside999 Burnside999 requested a review from mshabunin July 18, 2024 01:57
@asmorkalov asmorkalov merged commit 4dd54bb into opencv:4.x Jul 19, 2024
@asmorkalov asmorkalov mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2024
fengyuentau pushed a commit to fengyuentau/opencv that referenced this pull request Aug 15, 2024
Add a check for src == dst in ocl warpTransform opencv#25898

As mentioned in opencv#25853, when doing WarpAffine with Mat and UMat respectively, if you force the use of the in-place operation (so that src and dst are passed the same variables), Mat produces the correct results, but UMat produces unexpected results.

Obviously in-place operations are not possible with this transformation. When Mat performs the operation, if dst and src are the same variable, the function inherently makes a copy of src without telling the user. 

https://github.com/opencv/opencv/blob/74b50c7af05c91194469a1f059f971dff00ef889/modules/imgproc/src/imgwarp.cpp#L2831-L2834

So I did the same check in UMat, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate, should we just do a copy operation without telling the user (even if the user thinks he's doing an in-place operation), or should we throw an exception to indicate that we shouldn't pass in two same variables here?

The possible reason for this problem is that there is a create function here, so it gives the developer the false impression that this create function has allocated new memory for dst, however it does not.

https://github.com/opencv/opencv/blob/74b50c7af05c91194469a1f059f971dff00ef889/modules/imgproc/src/imgwarp.cpp#L2607-L2609

Because by the time the check is done here, the function has returned back.

https://github.com/opencv/opencv/blob/74b50c7af05c91194469a1f059f971dff00ef889/modules/core/src/umatrix.cpp#L668-L675

### Pull Request Readiness Checklist

See details at https://github.com/opencv/opencv/wiki/How_to_contribute#making-a-good-pull-request

- [x] I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
- [x] To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on a code under GPL or another license that is incompatible with OpenCV
- [x] The PR is proposed to the proper branch
- [x] There is a reference to the original bug report and related work
- [x] There is accuracy test, performance test and test data in opencv_extra repository, if applicable
      Patch to opencv_extra has the same branch name.
- [x] The feature is well documented and sample code can be built with the project CMake
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants