Source Filter cBuffers > 1 and GetDeliveryBuffer - c++

I'm writing a source filter for directshow. The intel Media SDK H.264 Encoder requires ALLOCATOR_PROPERTIES->cBuffer > 1.
when in DoBufferProcessingLoop I get the buffer using GetDeliveryBuffer(&pSample, NULL, NULL, 0)
Do I need to do anything to make sure I get the next buffer, and I'm not overwriting the previous buffer?
I noticed the pSample->AddRef() in the sample encoder. Do I have to do something similar when I GetdeliveryBuffer or in FillBuffer?

The buffer won't be reused until the only reference to the buffer is the reference from its owning memory allocator.
This means that in DoBufferProcessingLoop you get clean buffer, you do your thing filling it, then you pass it downstream. Then the magic continues and finally the buffer is ready for reuse when it is discarded or presented, and is not being used by anybody else. You don't need to do anything to ensure this, it happens on its own.

Related

OpenGL: why does glMapNamedBuffer() return GL_INVALID_OPERATION?

Using OpenGL 4.6, I have the following (abbreviated) code, in which I create a buffer and then attempt to map it in order to copy data over using memcpy():
glCreateBuffers(buffers.size(), buffers.data()); // buffers is a std::array of GLuints
// ...
glNamedBufferStorage(buffers[3], n * sizeof(glm::vec4), nullptr, 0); // I also tried GL_DYNAMIC_STORAGE_BIT
// ...
void* bfrptr = glMapNamedBuffer(buffers[3], GL_WRITE_ONLY);
This latter call returns GL_INVALID_OPERATION. I am sure that this is the call that generates the error, as I catch OpenGL errors right before it as well. The manpage suggests that this error is only generated if the given buffer handle is not the name of an existing buffer object, but I'm sure I created it. Is there anything else I'm missing or that I'm doing wrong?
When you create immutable buffer storage, you must tell OpenGL how you intend to access that storage from the CPU. These are not "usage hints"; these are requirements, a contract between yourself and OpenGL which GL will hold you to.
You passed 0 for the access mask. That means that you told OpenGL (among other things) that you were not going to access it by mapping it. Which you then tried to do.
So it didn't let you.
If you want to map an immutable buffer, you must tell OpenGL at storage allocation time that you're going to do that. Specifically, if you want to map it for writing, you must use the GL_MAP_WRITE_BIT flag in the gl(Named)BufferStorage call.

I called av_probe_input_format3(), now I want to call avcodec_find_decoder(), how do I convert the format in a codec?

So... I'm dealing with a system that has input data coming in buffers (i.e. NOT a file). I want to determine which decoder to create to decompress an audio stream (MP3, WAV, OGG, ...) So obviously I do not know the input format.
I found out that I could determine the format using the av_probe_input_format[23]() functions. That part works great, I get a format pointer that matches the files that I use as input.
AVInputFormat * format(av_probe_input_format3(&pd, true, &score));
I can print the format->name and format->long_name and these are the correct type (so the detection is working as expected).
Now, I'm trying to understand how to convert that AVInputFormat * into a AVCodec * so I can call avcodec_alloc_context3(codec) to create the actual audio decoder.
I found a couple of functions, which I used like so:
AVCodecID const codec_id(av_codec_get_id(format->codec_tag, format->raw_codec_id));
AVCodec * codec(avcodec_find_decoder(codec_id));
Problem 1. the raw_codec_id field is marked as "private" (should not access/use anywhere in your client's code).
Problem 2. the first function always returns AV_CODEC_ID_NONE (0) so of course the second call fails each time.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there is way to instead create a generic decode that will automatically detect the type of audio I have as input? (that is, would that be the only way to make that work?)
Okay, so the fact is that trying to use these functions directly is pretty much futile. The problem I have with the design is that it forces me to actually have a callback and that callback forces me to have a thread (i.e. I have to somehow feed data from a stream, not a file or such!)
So I can use the avformat_open_input() as mentioned by Gyan, only I have to have my own AVIOContext. I was hoping I could just call functions with my incoming data and avoid the pipeline concept. The issue here is some background processes could be servers that use fork() and thus you need to be really careful (i.e. fork() is not friendly with threads).

Capnp: Move to previous position in BufferedInputStreamWrapper

I have a binary file with multiple Capnp messages which I want to read. Reading sequentially works well, but I have the use-case, that I want to jump to a previously known position.
The data sequential images with metadata including there timestamp. I would like to have the possibility to jump back and forth (like in a video player).
This is what I have tried:
int fd = open(filePath.c_str(), O_RDONLY);
kj::FdInputStream fdStream(fd);
kj::BufferedInputStreamWrapper bufferedStream(fdStream);
for (;;) {
kj::ArrayPtr<const kj::byte> framePtr = bufferedStream.tryGetReadBuffer();
if (framePtr != nullptr) {
capnp::PackedMessageReader message(bufferedStream);
// This should reset the buffer to the last read message?
bufferedStream.read((void*)framePtr.begin(), framePtr.size());
// ...
}
else {
// reset to beginning
}
}
But I get this error:
capnp/serialize.c++:186: failed: expected segmentCount < 512; Message has too many segments
I was assuming that tryGetReadBuffer() returns the position and size of the next packed message. But then again, how is the BufferedInputStream supposed to know what "a message" is.
Question: How can I get position and size of messages and read these messages later on from the BufferedInputStreamWrapper?
Alternative: Reading the whole file once, take ownership of the data and save it to a vector. Such as described here (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/capnproto/Kg_Su1NnPOY). Better solution all along?
BufferedInputStream is not seekable. In order to seek backwards, you will need to destroy bufferedStream and then seek the underlying file descriptor, e.g. with lseek(), then create a new buffered stream.
Note that reading the current position (in order to pass to lseek() later to go back) is also tricky if a buffered stream is present, since the buffered stream will have read past the position in order to fill the buffer. You could calculate it by subtracting off the buffer size, e.g.:
// Determine current file position, so that we can seek to it later.
off_t messageStartPos = lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_CUR) -
bufferedStream.tryGetReadBuffer().size();
// Read a message
{
capnp::PackedMessageReader message(bufferedStream);
// ... do stuff with `message` ...
// Note that `message` is destroyed at this }. It's important that this
// happens before querying the buffered stream again, because
// PackedMesasgeReader updates the buffer position in its destructor.
}
// Determine the end position of the message (if you need it?).
off_t messageEndPos = lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_CUR) -
bufferedStream.tryGetReadBuffer().size();
bufferedStream.read((void*)framePtr.begin(), framePtr.size());
FWIW, the effect of this line is "advance past the current buffer an on to the next one". You don't want to do this when using PackedMessageReader, as it will already have advanced the stream itself. In fact, because PackedMessageReader might have already advanced past the current buffer, framePtr may now be invalid, and this line might segfault.
Alternative: Reading the whole file once, take ownership of the data and save it to a vector. Such as described here (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/capnproto/Kg_Su1NnPOY). Better solution all along?
If the file fits comfortably in RAM, then reading it upfront is usually fine, and probably a good idea if you expect to be seeking back and forth a lot.
Another option is to mmap() it. This makes it appear as if the file is in RAM, but the operating system will actually read in the contents on-demand when you access them.
However, I don't think this will actually simplify the code much. Now you'll be dealing with an ArrayInputStream (a subclass of BufferedInputStream). To "seek" you would create a new ArrayInputStream based on a slice of the buffer starting at the point where you want to start.

zlib's compress function is not doing anything. Why?

before = new unsigned char[mSizeNeeded*4];
uLong value = compressBound(mSizeNeeded*4);
after = new unsigned char[value];
compress(after, &value, before, mSizeNeeded*4);
fwrite(&after, 1, value, file);
'before' has a bunch of audio data stored into it and I am trying to compress it and store it into 'after'. I then write it into a file. The file is the same size as the original file, it also contains the same data that was in before (as far as I can tell).
Compress also returns OK so I know that the compression is not failing.
Okay, so it looks like my only problem is somewhere in the compression (I think). I am able to run compress and then I can uncompress and get the correct data out. Also, it is writing into the file and fwrite returns 561152 but the count (value) is 684964. So it looks like something is wrong with fwrite. I looked more carefully and the after data is different than the before data.
561152 is the same size as the original audio data in a .wav file that I have (stripped of the .wav headers of course).
Based on your original text:
fwrite (&before, ...
I am trying to compress it and store it into 'after'. I then write it into a file.
I think not. You are writing the original data to the file, you should probably be writing after instead.
The other thing you should get in the habit of doing is checking return values from functions that you care about. In other words, compress() will tell you if a problem occurs yet you seem to be totally ignoring the possibility.
Similarly, fwrite() also uses its return value to indicate whether it was successful or not. Since you haven't included the code showing how that's set up, this is also a distinct possibility. In particular fwrite is under no obligation to write your entire block to the file in one hit (device may be full, etc), that's why it has a return value, so you can detect and adjust for that situation. Often, a better option than:
fwrite (&after, 1, value, file);
is:
fwrite (&after, value, 1, file);
since the latter will always give you one for a fully successful write, something else for a failure of some description.
That would be my first step in establishing where the problem lies.
On top of that, there are numerous other (generally-applicable) methods you can use to track down the issue, such as:
outputting all variables after they change or are set (like the return values of functions, after, before, value and so on).
delete the output file before running your program, to ensure it's created afresh.
run the code through a debugger so you can see what's happening under the covers.
clearing after to all zero bytes (or a known pattern) to ensure you don't get stale data in there.
And, as a final approach (given that the zlib source code is freely available), you can also modify (or debug into) it so that you can clearly see what's going on under the covers.

What is the best way to return an image or video file from a function using c++?

I am writing a c++ library that fetches and returns either image data or video data from a cloud server using libcurl. I've started writing some test code but still stuck at designing API because I'm not sure about what's best way to handle these media files. Storing it in a char/string variable as binary data seems to work, but I wonder if that would take up too much RAM memory if the files are too big. I'm new to this, so please suggest a solution.
You can use something like zlib to compress it in memory, and then uncompress it only when it needs to be used; however, most modern computers have quite a lot of memory, so you can handle quite a lot of images before you need to start compressing. With videos, which are effectively a LOT of images, it becomes a bit more important -- you tend to decompress as you go, and possibly even stream-from-disk as you go.
The usual way to handle this, from an API point of view, is to have something like an Image object and a Video object (classes). These objects would have functions to "get" the uncompressed image/frame. The "get" function would check to see if the data is currently compressed; if it is, it would decompress it before returning it; if it's not compressed, it can return it immediately. The way the data is actually stored (compressed/uncompressed/on disk/in memory) and the details of how to work with it are thus hidden behind the "get" function. Most importantly, this model lets you change your mind later, adding additional types of compression, adding disk-streaming support, etc., without changing how the code that calls the get() function is written.
The other challenge is how you return an Image or Video object from a function. You can do it like this:
Image getImageFromURL( const std::string &url );
But this has the interesting problem that the image is "copied" during the return process (sometimes; depends how the compiler optimizes things). This way is more memory efficient:
void getImageFromURL( const std::string &url, Image &result );
This way, you pass in the image object into which you want your image loaded. No copies are made. You can also change the 'void' return value into some kind of error/status code, if you aren't using exceptions.
If you're worried about what to do, code for both returning the data in an array and for writing the data in a file ... and pass the responsability to choose to the caller. Make your function something like
/* one of dst and outfile should be NULL */
/* if dst is not NULL, dstlen specifies the size of the array */
/* if outfile is not NULL, data is written to that file */
/* the return value indicates success (0) or reason for failure */
int getdata(unsigned char *dst, size_t dstlen,
const char *outfile,
const char *resource);