Index: structure.txt |
diff --git a/structure.txt b/structure.txt |
new file mode 100644 |
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..296d1250fdf629d0a6657e4b2564995ada8b277f |
--- /dev/null |
+++ b/structure.txt |
@@ -0,0 +1,906 @@ |
+IJG JPEG LIBRARY: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE |
+ |
+This file was part of the Independent JPEG Group's software: |
+Copyright (C) 1991-2012, Thomas G. Lane, Guido Vollbeding. |
+It was modified by The libjpeg-turbo Project to include only information |
+relevant to libjpeg-turbo. |
+For conditions of distribution and use, see the accompanying README.ijg file. |
+ |
+ |
+This file provides an overview of the architecture of the IJG JPEG software; |
+that is, the functions of the various modules in the system and the interfaces |
+between modules. For more precise details about any data structure or calling |
+convention, see the include files and comments in the source code. |
+ |
+We assume that the reader is already somewhat familiar with the JPEG standard. |
+The README.ijg file includes references for learning about JPEG. The file |
+libjpeg.txt describes the library from the viewpoint of an application |
+programmer using the library; it's best to read that file before this one. |
+Also, the file coderules.txt describes the coding style conventions we use. |
+ |
+In this document, JPEG-specific terminology follows the JPEG standard: |
+ A "component" means a color channel, e.g., Red or Luminance. |
+ A "sample" is a single component value (i.e., one number in the image data). |
+ A "coefficient" is a frequency coefficient (a DCT transform output number). |
+ A "block" is an 8x8 group of samples or coefficients. |
+ An "MCU" (minimum coded unit) is an interleaved set of blocks of size |
+ determined by the sampling factors, or a single block in a |
+ noninterleaved scan. |
+We do not use the terms "pixel" and "sample" interchangeably. When we say |
+pixel, we mean an element of the full-size image, while a sample is an element |
+of the downsampled image. Thus the number of samples may vary across |
+components while the number of pixels does not. (This terminology is not used |
+rigorously throughout the code, but it is used in places where confusion would |
+otherwise result.) |
+ |
+ |
+*** System features *** |
+ |
+The IJG distribution contains two parts: |
+ * A subroutine library for JPEG compression and decompression. |
+ * cjpeg/djpeg, two sample applications that use the library to transform |
+ JFIF JPEG files to and from several other image formats. |
+cjpeg/djpeg are of no great intellectual complexity: they merely add a simple |
+command-line user interface and I/O routines for several uncompressed image |
+formats. This document concentrates on the library itself. |
+ |
+We desire the library to be capable of supporting all JPEG baseline, extended |
+sequential, and progressive DCT processes. Hierarchical processes are not |
+supported. |
+ |
+The library does not support the lossless (spatial) JPEG process. Lossless |
+JPEG shares little or no code with lossy JPEG, and would normally be used |
+without the extensive pre- and post-processing provided by this library. |
+We feel that lossless JPEG is better handled by a separate library. |
+ |
+Within these limits, any set of compression parameters allowed by the JPEG |
+spec should be readable for decompression. (We can be more restrictive about |
+what formats we can generate.) Although the system design allows for all |
+parameter values, some uncommon settings are not yet implemented and may |
+never be; nonintegral sampling ratios are the prime example. Furthermore, |
+we treat 8-bit vs. 12-bit data precision as a compile-time switch, not a |
+run-time option, because most machines can store 8-bit pixels much more |
+compactly than 12-bit. |
+ |
+By itself, the library handles only interchange JPEG datastreams --- in |
+particular the widely used JFIF file format. The library can be used by |
+surrounding code to process interchange or abbreviated JPEG datastreams that |
+are embedded in more complex file formats. (For example, libtiff uses this |
+library to implement JPEG compression within the TIFF file format.) |
+ |
+The library includes a substantial amount of code that is not covered by the |
+JPEG standard but is necessary for typical applications of JPEG. These |
+functions preprocess the image before JPEG compression or postprocess it after |
+decompression. They include colorspace conversion, downsampling/upsampling, |
+and color quantization. This code can be omitted if not needed. |
+ |
+A wide range of quality vs. speed tradeoffs are possible in JPEG processing, |
+and even more so in decompression postprocessing. The decompression library |
+provides multiple implementations that cover most of the useful tradeoffs, |
+ranging from very-high-quality down to fast-preview operation. On the |
+compression side we have generally not provided low-quality choices, since |
+compression is normally less time-critical. It should be understood that the |
+low-quality modes may not meet the JPEG standard's accuracy requirements; |
+nonetheless, they are useful for viewers. |
+ |
+ |
+*** System overview *** |
+ |
+The compressor and decompressor are each divided into two main sections: |
+the JPEG compressor or decompressor proper, and the preprocessing or |
+postprocessing functions. The interface between these two sections is the |
+image data that the official JPEG spec regards as its input or output: this |
+data is in the colorspace to be used for compression, and it is downsampled |
+to the sampling factors to be used. The preprocessing and postprocessing |
+steps are responsible for converting a normal image representation to or from |
+this form. (Those few applications that want to deal with YCbCr downsampled |
+data can skip the preprocessing or postprocessing step.) |
+ |
+Looking more closely, the compressor library contains the following main |
+elements: |
+ |
+ Preprocessing: |
+ * Color space conversion (e.g., RGB to YCbCr). |
+ * Edge expansion and downsampling. Optionally, this step can do simple |
+ smoothing --- this is often helpful for low-quality source data. |
+ JPEG proper: |
+ * MCU assembly, DCT, quantization. |
+ * Entropy coding (sequential or progressive, Huffman or arithmetic). |
+ |
+In addition to these modules we need overall control, marker generation, |
+and support code (memory management & error handling). There is also a |
+module responsible for physically writing the output data --- typically |
+this is just an interface to fwrite(), but some applications may need to |
+do something else with the data. |
+ |
+The decompressor library contains the following main elements: |
+ |
+ JPEG proper: |
+ * Entropy decoding (sequential or progressive, Huffman or arithmetic). |
+ * Dequantization, inverse DCT, MCU disassembly. |
+ Postprocessing: |
+ * Upsampling. Optionally, this step may be able to do more general |
+ rescaling of the image. |
+ * Color space conversion (e.g., YCbCr to RGB). This step may also |
+ provide gamma adjustment [ currently it does not ]. |
+ * Optional color quantization (e.g., reduction to 256 colors). |
+ * Optional color precision reduction (e.g., 24-bit to 15-bit color). |
+ [This feature is not currently implemented.] |
+ |
+We also need overall control, marker parsing, and a data source module. |
+The support code (memory management & error handling) can be shared with |
+the compression half of the library. |
+ |
+There may be several implementations of each of these elements, particularly |
+in the decompressor, where a wide range of speed/quality tradeoffs is very |
+useful. It must be understood that some of the best speedups involve |
+merging adjacent steps in the pipeline. For example, upsampling, color space |
+conversion, and color quantization might all be done at once when using a |
+low-quality ordered-dither technique. The system architecture is designed to |
+allow such merging where appropriate. |
+ |
+ |
+Note: it is convenient to regard edge expansion (padding to block boundaries) |
+as a preprocessing/postprocessing function, even though the JPEG spec includes |
+it in compression/decompression. We do this because downsampling/upsampling |
+can be simplified a little if they work on padded data: it's not necessary to |
+have special cases at the right and bottom edges. Therefore the interface |
+buffer is always an integral number of blocks wide and high, and we expect |
+compression preprocessing to pad the source data properly. Padding will occur |
+only to the next block (8-sample) boundary. In an interleaved-scan situation, |
+additional dummy blocks may be used to fill out MCUs, but the MCU assembly and |
+disassembly logic will create or discard these blocks internally. (This is |
+advantageous for speed reasons, since we avoid DCTing the dummy blocks. |
+It also permits a small reduction in file size, because the compressor can |
+choose dummy block contents so as to minimize their size in compressed form. |
+Finally, it makes the interface buffer specification independent of whether |
+the file is actually interleaved or not.) Applications that wish to deal |
+directly with the downsampled data must provide similar buffering and padding |
+for odd-sized images. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Poor man's object-oriented programming *** |
+ |
+It should be clear by now that we have a lot of quasi-independent processing |
+steps, many of which have several possible behaviors. To avoid cluttering the |
+code with lots of switch statements, we use a simple form of object-style |
+programming to separate out the different possibilities. |
+ |
+For example, two different color quantization algorithms could be implemented |
+as two separate modules that present the same external interface; at runtime, |
+the calling code will access the proper module indirectly through an "object". |
+ |
+We can get the limited features we need while staying within portable C. |
+The basic tool is a function pointer. An "object" is just a struct |
+containing one or more function pointer fields, each of which corresponds to |
+a method name in real object-oriented languages. During initialization we |
+fill in the function pointers with references to whichever module we have |
+determined we need to use in this run. Then invocation of the module is done |
+by indirecting through a function pointer; on most machines this is no more |
+expensive than a switch statement, which would be the only other way of |
+making the required run-time choice. The really significant benefit, of |
+course, is keeping the source code clean and well structured. |
+ |
+We can also arrange to have private storage that varies between different |
+implementations of the same kind of object. We do this by making all the |
+module-specific object structs be separately allocated entities, which will |
+be accessed via pointers in the master compression or decompression struct. |
+The "public" fields or methods for a given kind of object are specified by |
+a commonly known struct. But a module's initialization code can allocate |
+a larger struct that contains the common struct as its first member, plus |
+additional private fields. With appropriate pointer casting, the module's |
+internal functions can access these private fields. (For a simple example, |
+see jdatadst.c, which implements the external interface specified by struct |
+jpeg_destination_mgr, but adds extra fields.) |
+ |
+(Of course this would all be a lot easier if we were using C++, but we are |
+not yet prepared to assume that everyone has a C++ compiler.) |
+ |
+An important benefit of this scheme is that it is easy to provide multiple |
+versions of any method, each tuned to a particular case. While a lot of |
+precalculation might be done to select an optimal implementation of a method, |
+the cost per invocation is constant. For example, the upsampling step might |
+have a "generic" method, plus one or more "hardwired" methods for the most |
+popular sampling factors; the hardwired methods would be faster because they'd |
+use straight-line code instead of for-loops. The cost to determine which |
+method to use is paid only once, at startup, and the selection criteria are |
+hidden from the callers of the method. |
+ |
+This plan differs a little bit from usual object-oriented structures, in that |
+only one instance of each object class will exist during execution. The |
+reason for having the class structure is that on different runs we may create |
+different instances (choose to execute different modules). You can think of |
+the term "method" as denoting the common interface presented by a particular |
+set of interchangeable functions, and "object" as denoting a group of related |
+methods, or the total shared interface behavior of a group of modules. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Overall control structure *** |
+ |
+We previously mentioned the need for overall control logic in the compression |
+and decompression libraries. In IJG implementations prior to v5, overall |
+control was mostly provided by "pipeline control" modules, which proved to be |
+large, unwieldy, and hard to understand. To improve the situation, the |
+control logic has been subdivided into multiple modules. The control modules |
+consist of: |
+ |
+1. Master control for module selection and initialization. This has two |
+responsibilities: |
+ |
+ 1A. Startup initialization at the beginning of image processing. |
+ The individual processing modules to be used in this run are selected |
+ and given initialization calls. |
+ |
+ 1B. Per-pass control. This determines how many passes will be performed |
+ and calls each active processing module to configure itself |
+ appropriately at the beginning of each pass. End-of-pass processing, |
+ where necessary, is also invoked from the master control module. |
+ |
+ Method selection is partially distributed, in that a particular processing |
+ module may contain several possible implementations of a particular method, |
+ which it will select among when given its initialization call. The master |
+ control code need only be concerned with decisions that affect more than |
+ one module. |
+ |
+2. Data buffering control. A separate control module exists for each |
+ inter-processing-step data buffer. This module is responsible for |
+ invoking the processing steps that write or read that data buffer. |
+ |
+Each buffer controller sees the world as follows: |
+ |
+input data => processing step A => buffer => processing step B => output data |
+ | | | |
+ ------------------ controller ------------------ |
+ |
+The controller knows the dataflow requirements of steps A and B: how much data |
+they want to accept in one chunk and how much they output in one chunk. Its |
+function is to manage its buffer and call A and B at the proper times. |
+ |
+A data buffer control module may itself be viewed as a processing step by a |
+higher-level control module; thus the control modules form a binary tree with |
+elementary processing steps at the leaves of the tree. |
+ |
+The control modules are objects. A considerable amount of flexibility can |
+be had by replacing implementations of a control module. For example: |
+* Merging of adjacent steps in the pipeline is done by replacing a control |
+ module and its pair of processing-step modules with a single processing- |
+ step module. (Hence the possible merges are determined by the tree of |
+ control modules.) |
+* In some processing modes, a given interstep buffer need only be a "strip" |
+ buffer large enough to accommodate the desired data chunk sizes. In other |
+ modes, a full-image buffer is needed and several passes are required. |
+ The control module determines which kind of buffer is used and manipulates |
+ virtual array buffers as needed. One or both processing steps may be |
+ unaware of the multi-pass behavior. |
+ |
+In theory, we might be able to make all of the data buffer controllers |
+interchangeable and provide just one set of implementations for all. In |
+practice, each one contains considerable special-case processing for its |
+particular job. The buffer controller concept should be regarded as an |
+overall system structuring principle, not as a complete description of the |
+task performed by any one controller. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Compression object structure *** |
+ |
+Here is a sketch of the logical structure of the JPEG compression library: |
+ |
+ |-- Colorspace conversion |
+ |-- Preprocessing controller --| |
+ | |-- Downsampling |
+Main controller --| |
+ | |-- Forward DCT, quantize |
+ |-- Coefficient controller --| |
+ |-- Entropy encoding |
+ |
+This sketch also describes the flow of control (subroutine calls) during |
+typical image data processing. Each of the components shown in the diagram is |
+an "object" which may have several different implementations available. One |
+or more source code files contain the actual implementation(s) of each object. |
+ |
+The objects shown above are: |
+ |
+* Main controller: buffer controller for the subsampled-data buffer, which |
+ holds the preprocessed input data. This controller invokes preprocessing to |
+ fill the subsampled-data buffer, and JPEG compression to empty it. There is |
+ usually no need for a full-image buffer here; a strip buffer is adequate. |
+ |
+* Preprocessing controller: buffer controller for the downsampling input data |
+ buffer, which lies between colorspace conversion and downsampling. Note |
+ that a unified conversion/downsampling module would probably replace this |
+ controller entirely. |
+ |
+* Colorspace conversion: converts application image data into the desired |
+ JPEG color space; also changes the data from pixel-interleaved layout to |
+ separate component planes. Processes one pixel row at a time. |
+ |
+* Downsampling: performs reduction of chroma components as required. |
+ Optionally may perform pixel-level smoothing as well. Processes a "row |
+ group" at a time, where a row group is defined as Vmax pixel rows of each |
+ component before downsampling, and Vk sample rows afterwards (remember Vk |
+ differs across components). Some downsampling or smoothing algorithms may |
+ require context rows above and below the current row group; the |
+ preprocessing controller is responsible for supplying these rows via proper |
+ buffering. The downsampler is responsible for edge expansion at the right |
+ edge (i.e., extending each sample row to a multiple of 8 samples); but the |
+ preprocessing controller is responsible for vertical edge expansion (i.e., |
+ duplicating the bottom sample row as needed to make a multiple of 8 rows). |
+ |
+* Coefficient controller: buffer controller for the DCT-coefficient data. |
+ This controller handles MCU assembly, including insertion of dummy DCT |
+ blocks when needed at the right or bottom edge. When performing |
+ Huffman-code optimization or emitting a multiscan JPEG file, this |
+ controller is responsible for buffering the full image. The equivalent of |
+ one fully interleaved MCU row of subsampled data is processed per call, |
+ even when the JPEG file is noninterleaved. |
+ |
+* Forward DCT and quantization: Perform DCT, quantize, and emit coefficients. |
+ Works on one or more DCT blocks at a time. (Note: the coefficients are now |
+ emitted in normal array order, which the entropy encoder is expected to |
+ convert to zigzag order as necessary. Prior versions of the IJG code did |
+ the conversion to zigzag order within the quantization step.) |
+ |
+* Entropy encoding: Perform Huffman or arithmetic entropy coding and emit the |
+ coded data to the data destination module. Works on one MCU per call. |
+ For progressive JPEG, the same DCT blocks are fed to the entropy coder |
+ during each pass, and the coder must emit the appropriate subset of |
+ coefficients. |
+ |
+In addition to the above objects, the compression library includes these |
+objects: |
+ |
+* Master control: determines the number of passes required, controls overall |
+ and per-pass initialization of the other modules. |
+ |
+* Marker writing: generates JPEG markers (except for RSTn, which is emitted |
+ by the entropy encoder when needed). |
+ |
+* Data destination manager: writes the output JPEG datastream to its final |
+ destination (e.g., a file). The destination manager supplied with the |
+ library knows how to write to a stdio stream or to a memory buffer; |
+ for other behaviors, the surrounding application may provide its own |
+ destination manager. |
+ |
+* Memory manager: allocates and releases memory, controls virtual arrays |
+ (with backing store management, where required). |
+ |
+* Error handler: performs formatting and output of error and trace messages; |
+ determines handling of nonfatal errors. The surrounding application may |
+ override some or all of this object's methods to change error handling. |
+ |
+* Progress monitor: supports output of "percent-done" progress reports. |
+ This object represents an optional callback to the surrounding application: |
+ if wanted, it must be supplied by the application. |
+ |
+The error handler, destination manager, and progress monitor objects are |
+defined as separate objects in order to simplify application-specific |
+customization of the JPEG library. A surrounding application may override |
+individual methods or supply its own all-new implementation of one of these |
+objects. The object interfaces for these objects are therefore treated as |
+part of the application interface of the library, whereas the other objects |
+are internal to the library. |
+ |
+The error handler and memory manager are shared by JPEG compression and |
+decompression; the progress monitor, if used, may be shared as well. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Decompression object structure *** |
+ |
+Here is a sketch of the logical structure of the JPEG decompression library: |
+ |
+ |-- Entropy decoding |
+ |-- Coefficient controller --| |
+ | |-- Dequantize, Inverse DCT |
+Main controller --| |
+ | |-- Upsampling |
+ |-- Postprocessing controller --| |-- Colorspace conversion |
+ |-- Color quantization |
+ |-- Color precision reduction |
+ |
+As before, this diagram also represents typical control flow. The objects |
+shown are: |
+ |
+* Main controller: buffer controller for the subsampled-data buffer, which |
+ holds the output of JPEG decompression proper. This controller's primary |
+ task is to feed the postprocessing procedure. Some upsampling algorithms |
+ may require context rows above and below the current row group; when this |
+ is true, the main controller is responsible for managing its buffer so as |
+ to make context rows available. In the current design, the main buffer is |
+ always a strip buffer; a full-image buffer is never required. |
+ |
+* Coefficient controller: buffer controller for the DCT-coefficient data. |
+ This controller handles MCU disassembly, including deletion of any dummy |
+ DCT blocks at the right or bottom edge. When reading a multiscan JPEG |
+ file, this controller is responsible for buffering the full image. |
+ (Buffering DCT coefficients, rather than samples, is necessary to support |
+ progressive JPEG.) The equivalent of one fully interleaved MCU row of |
+ subsampled data is processed per call, even when the source JPEG file is |
+ noninterleaved. |
+ |
+* Entropy decoding: Read coded data from the data source module and perform |
+ Huffman or arithmetic entropy decoding. Works on one MCU per call. |
+ For progressive JPEG decoding, the coefficient controller supplies the prior |
+ coefficients of each MCU (initially all zeroes), which the entropy decoder |
+ modifies in each scan. |
+ |
+* Dequantization and inverse DCT: like it says. Note that the coefficients |
+ buffered by the coefficient controller have NOT been dequantized; we |
+ merge dequantization and inverse DCT into a single step for speed reasons. |
+ When scaled-down output is asked for, simplified DCT algorithms may be used |
+ that emit fewer samples per DCT block, not the full 8x8. Works on one DCT |
+ block at a time. |
+ |
+* Postprocessing controller: buffer controller for the color quantization |
+ input buffer, when quantization is in use. (Without quantization, this |
+ controller just calls the upsampler.) For two-pass quantization, this |
+ controller is responsible for buffering the full-image data. |
+ |
+* Upsampling: restores chroma components to full size. (May support more |
+ general output rescaling, too. Note that if undersized DCT outputs have |
+ been emitted by the DCT module, this module must adjust so that properly |
+ sized outputs are created.) Works on one row group at a time. This module |
+ also calls the color conversion module, so its top level is effectively a |
+ buffer controller for the upsampling->color conversion buffer. However, in |
+ all but the highest-quality operating modes, upsampling and color |
+ conversion are likely to be merged into a single step. |
+ |
+* Colorspace conversion: convert from JPEG color space to output color space, |
+ and change data layout from separate component planes to pixel-interleaved. |
+ Works on one pixel row at a time. |
+ |
+* Color quantization: reduce the data to colormapped form, using either an |
+ externally specified colormap or an internally generated one. This module |
+ is not used for full-color output. Works on one pixel row at a time; may |
+ require two passes to generate a color map. Note that the output will |
+ always be a single component representing colormap indexes. In the current |
+ design, the output values are JSAMPLEs, so an 8-bit compilation cannot |
+ quantize to more than 256 colors. This is unlikely to be a problem in |
+ practice. |
+ |
+* Color reduction: this module handles color precision reduction, e.g., |
+ generating 15-bit color (5 bits/primary) from JPEG's 24-bit output. |
+ Not quite clear yet how this should be handled... should we merge it with |
+ colorspace conversion??? |
+ |
+Note that some high-speed operating modes might condense the entire |
+postprocessing sequence to a single module (upsample, color convert, and |
+quantize in one step). |
+ |
+In addition to the above objects, the decompression library includes these |
+objects: |
+ |
+* Master control: determines the number of passes required, controls overall |
+ and per-pass initialization of the other modules. This is subdivided into |
+ input and output control: jdinput.c controls only input-side processing, |
+ while jdmaster.c handles overall initialization and output-side control. |
+ |
+* Marker reading: decodes JPEG markers (except for RSTn). |
+ |
+* Data source manager: supplies the input JPEG datastream. The source |
+ manager supplied with the library knows how to read from a stdio stream |
+ or from a memory buffer; for other behaviors, the surrounding application |
+ may provide its own source manager. |
+ |
+* Memory manager: same as for compression library. |
+ |
+* Error handler: same as for compression library. |
+ |
+* Progress monitor: same as for compression library. |
+ |
+As with compression, the data source manager, error handler, and progress |
+monitor are candidates for replacement by a surrounding application. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Decompression input and output separation *** |
+ |
+To support efficient incremental display of progressive JPEG files, the |
+decompressor is divided into two sections that can run independently: |
+ |
+1. Data input includes marker parsing, entropy decoding, and input into the |
+ coefficient controller's DCT coefficient buffer. Note that this |
+ processing is relatively cheap and fast. |
+ |
+2. Data output reads from the DCT coefficient buffer and performs the IDCT |
+ and all postprocessing steps. |
+ |
+For a progressive JPEG file, the data input processing is allowed to get |
+arbitrarily far ahead of the data output processing. (This occurs only |
+if the application calls jpeg_consume_input(); otherwise input and output |
+run in lockstep, since the input section is called only when the output |
+section needs more data.) In this way the application can avoid making |
+extra display passes when data is arriving faster than the display pass |
+can run. Furthermore, it is possible to abort an output pass without |
+losing anything, since the coefficient buffer is read-only as far as the |
+output section is concerned. See libjpeg.txt for more detail. |
+ |
+A full-image coefficient array is only created if the JPEG file has multiple |
+scans (or if the application specifies buffered-image mode anyway). When |
+reading a single-scan file, the coefficient controller normally creates only |
+a one-MCU buffer, so input and output processing must run in lockstep in this |
+case. jpeg_consume_input() is effectively a no-op in this situation. |
+ |
+The main impact of dividing the decompressor in this fashion is that we must |
+be very careful with shared variables in the cinfo data structure. Each |
+variable that can change during the course of decompression must be |
+classified as belonging to data input or data output, and each section must |
+look only at its own variables. For example, the data output section may not |
+depend on any of the variables that describe the current scan in the JPEG |
+file, because these may change as the data input section advances into a new |
+scan. |
+ |
+The progress monitor is (somewhat arbitrarily) defined to treat input of the |
+file as one pass when buffered-image mode is not used, and to ignore data |
+input work completely when buffered-image mode is used. Note that the |
+library has no reliable way to predict the number of passes when dealing |
+with a progressive JPEG file, nor can it predict the number of output passes |
+in buffered-image mode. So the work estimate is inherently bogus anyway. |
+ |
+No comparable division is currently made in the compression library, because |
+there isn't any real need for it. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Data formats *** |
+ |
+Arrays of pixel sample values use the following data structure: |
+ |
+ typedef something JSAMPLE; a pixel component value, 0..MAXJSAMPLE |
+ typedef JSAMPLE *JSAMPROW; ptr to a row of samples |
+ typedef JSAMPROW *JSAMPARRAY; ptr to a list of rows |
+ typedef JSAMPARRAY *JSAMPIMAGE; ptr to a list of color-component arrays |
+ |
+The basic element type JSAMPLE will typically be one of unsigned char, |
+(signed) char, or short. Short will be used if samples wider than 8 bits are |
+to be supported (this is a compile-time option). Otherwise, unsigned char is |
+used if possible. If the compiler only supports signed chars, then it is |
+necessary to mask off the value when reading. Thus, all reads of JSAMPLE |
+values must be coded as "GETJSAMPLE(value)", where the macro will be defined |
+as "((value) & 0xFF)" on signed-char machines and "((int) (value))" elsewhere. |
+ |
+With these conventions, JSAMPLE values can be assumed to be >= 0. This helps |
+simplify correct rounding during downsampling, etc. The JPEG standard's |
+specification that sample values run from -128..127 is accommodated by |
+subtracting 128 from the sample value in the DCT step. Similarly, during |
+decompression the output of the IDCT step will be immediately shifted back to |
+0..255. (NB: different values are required when 12-bit samples are in use. |
+The code is written in terms of MAXJSAMPLE and CENTERJSAMPLE, which will be |
+defined as 255 and 128 respectively in an 8-bit implementation, and as 4095 |
+and 2048 in a 12-bit implementation.) |
+ |
+We use a pointer per row, rather than a two-dimensional JSAMPLE array. This |
+choice costs only a small amount of memory and has several benefits: |
+* Code using the data structure doesn't need to know the allocated width of |
+ the rows. This simplifies edge expansion/compression, since we can work |
+ in an array that's wider than the logical picture width. |
+* Indexing doesn't require multiplication; this is a performance win on many |
+ machines. |
+* Arrays with more than 64K total elements can be supported even on machines |
+ where malloc() cannot allocate chunks larger than 64K. |
+* The rows forming a component array may be allocated at different times |
+ without extra copying. This trick allows some speedups in smoothing steps |
+ that need access to the previous and next rows. |
+ |
+Note that each color component is stored in a separate array; we don't use the |
+traditional layout in which the components of a pixel are stored together. |
+This simplifies coding of modules that work on each component independently, |
+because they don't need to know how many components there are. Furthermore, |
+we can read or write each component to a temporary file independently, which |
+is helpful when dealing with noninterleaved JPEG files. |
+ |
+In general, a specific sample value is accessed by code such as |
+ GETJSAMPLE(image[colorcomponent][row][col]) |
+where col is measured from the image left edge, but row is measured from the |
+first sample row currently in memory. Either of the first two indexings can |
+be precomputed by copying the relevant pointer. |
+ |
+ |
+Since most image-processing applications prefer to work on images in which |
+the components of a pixel are stored together, the data passed to or from the |
+surrounding application uses the traditional convention: a single pixel is |
+represented by N consecutive JSAMPLE values, and an image row is an array of |
+(# of color components)*(image width) JSAMPLEs. One or more rows of data can |
+be represented by a pointer of type JSAMPARRAY in this scheme. This scheme is |
+converted to component-wise storage inside the JPEG library. (Applications |
+that want to skip JPEG preprocessing or postprocessing will have to contend |
+with component-wise storage.) |
+ |
+ |
+Arrays of DCT-coefficient values use the following data structure: |
+ |
+ typedef short JCOEF; a 16-bit signed integer |
+ typedef JCOEF JBLOCK[DCTSIZE2]; an 8x8 block of coefficients |
+ typedef JBLOCK *JBLOCKROW; ptr to one horizontal row of 8x8 blocks |
+ typedef JBLOCKROW *JBLOCKARRAY; ptr to a list of such rows |
+ typedef JBLOCKARRAY *JBLOCKIMAGE; ptr to a list of color component arrays |
+ |
+The underlying type is at least a 16-bit signed integer; while "short" is big |
+enough on all machines of interest, on some machines it is preferable to use |
+"int" for speed reasons, despite the storage cost. Coefficients are grouped |
+into 8x8 blocks (but we always use #defines DCTSIZE and DCTSIZE2 rather than |
+"8" and "64"). |
+ |
+The contents of a coefficient block may be in either "natural" or zigzagged |
+order, and may be true values or divided by the quantization coefficients, |
+depending on where the block is in the processing pipeline. In the current |
+library, coefficient blocks are kept in natural order everywhere; the entropy |
+codecs zigzag or dezigzag the data as it is written or read. The blocks |
+contain quantized coefficients everywhere outside the DCT/IDCT subsystems. |
+(This latter decision may need to be revisited to support variable |
+quantization a la JPEG Part 3.) |
+ |
+Notice that the allocation unit is now a row of 8x8 blocks, corresponding to |
+eight rows of samples. Otherwise the structure is much the same as for |
+samples, and for the same reasons. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Suspendable processing *** |
+ |
+In some applications it is desirable to use the JPEG library as an |
+incremental, memory-to-memory filter. In this situation the data source or |
+destination may be a limited-size buffer, and we can't rely on being able to |
+empty or refill the buffer at arbitrary times. Instead the application would |
+like to have control return from the library at buffer overflow/underrun, and |
+then resume compression or decompression at a later time. |
+ |
+This scenario is supported for simple cases. (For anything more complex, we |
+recommend that the application "bite the bullet" and develop real multitasking |
+capability.) The libjpeg.txt file goes into more detail about the usage and |
+limitations of this capability; here we address the implications for library |
+structure. |
+ |
+The essence of the problem is that the entropy codec (coder or decoder) must |
+be prepared to stop at arbitrary times. In turn, the controllers that call |
+the entropy codec must be able to stop before having produced or consumed all |
+the data that they normally would handle in one call. That part is reasonably |
+straightforward: we make the controller call interfaces include "progress |
+counters" which indicate the number of data chunks successfully processed, and |
+we require callers to test the counter rather than just assume all of the data |
+was processed. |
+ |
+Rather than trying to restart at an arbitrary point, the current Huffman |
+codecs are designed to restart at the beginning of the current MCU after a |
+suspension due to buffer overflow/underrun. At the start of each call, the |
+codec's internal state is loaded from permanent storage (in the JPEG object |
+structures) into local variables. On successful completion of the MCU, the |
+permanent state is updated. (This copying is not very expensive, and may even |
+lead to *improved* performance if the local variables can be registerized.) |
+If a suspension occurs, the codec simply returns without updating the state, |
+thus effectively reverting to the start of the MCU. Note that this implies |
+leaving some data unprocessed in the source/destination buffer (ie, the |
+compressed partial MCU). The data source/destination module interfaces are |
+specified so as to make this possible. This also implies that the data buffer |
+must be large enough to hold a worst-case compressed MCU; a couple thousand |
+bytes should be enough. |
+ |
+In a successive-approximation AC refinement scan, the progressive Huffman |
+decoder has to be able to undo assignments of newly nonzero coefficients if it |
+suspends before the MCU is complete, since decoding requires distinguishing |
+previously-zero and previously-nonzero coefficients. This is a bit tedious |
+but probably won't have much effect on performance. Other variants of Huffman |
+decoding need not worry about this, since they will just store the same values |
+again if forced to repeat the MCU. |
+ |
+This approach would probably not work for an arithmetic codec, since its |
+modifiable state is quite large and couldn't be copied cheaply. Instead it |
+would have to suspend and resume exactly at the point of the buffer end. |
+ |
+The JPEG marker reader is designed to cope with suspension at an arbitrary |
+point. It does so by backing up to the start of the marker parameter segment, |
+so the data buffer must be big enough to hold the largest marker of interest. |
+Again, a couple KB should be adequate. (A special "skip" convention is used |
+to bypass COM and APPn markers, so these can be larger than the buffer size |
+without causing problems; otherwise a 64K buffer would be needed in the worst |
+case.) |
+ |
+The JPEG marker writer currently does *not* cope with suspension. |
+We feel that this is not necessary; it is much easier simply to require |
+the application to ensure there is enough buffer space before starting. (An |
+empty 2K buffer is more than sufficient for the header markers; and ensuring |
+there are a dozen or two bytes available before calling jpeg_finish_compress() |
+will suffice for the trailer.) This would not work for writing multi-scan |
+JPEG files, but we simply do not intend to support that capability with |
+suspension. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Memory manager services *** |
+ |
+The JPEG library's memory manager controls allocation and deallocation of |
+memory, and it manages large "virtual" data arrays on machines where the |
+operating system does not provide virtual memory. Note that the same |
+memory manager serves both compression and decompression operations. |
+ |
+In all cases, allocated objects are tied to a particular compression or |
+decompression master record, and they will be released when that master |
+record is destroyed. |
+ |
+The memory manager does not provide explicit deallocation of objects. |
+Instead, objects are created in "pools" of free storage, and a whole pool |
+can be freed at once. This approach helps prevent storage-leak bugs, and |
+it speeds up operations whenever malloc/free are slow (as they often are). |
+The pools can be regarded as lifetime identifiers for objects. Two |
+pools/lifetimes are defined: |
+ * JPOOL_PERMANENT lasts until master record is destroyed |
+ * JPOOL_IMAGE lasts until done with image (JPEG datastream) |
+Permanent lifetime is used for parameters and tables that should be carried |
+across from one datastream to another; this includes all application-visible |
+parameters. Image lifetime is used for everything else. (A third lifetime, |
+JPOOL_PASS = one processing pass, was originally planned. However it was |
+dropped as not being worthwhile. The actual usage patterns are such that the |
+peak memory usage would be about the same anyway; and having per-pass storage |
+substantially complicates the virtual memory allocation rules --- see below.) |
+ |
+The memory manager deals with three kinds of object: |
+1. "Small" objects. Typically these require no more than 10K-20K total. |
+2. "Large" objects. These may require tens to hundreds of K depending on |
+ image size. Semantically they behave the same as small objects, but we |
+ distinguish them because pool allocation heuristics may differ for large and |
+ small objects (historically, large objects were also referenced by far |
+ pointers on MS-DOS machines.) Note that individual "large" objects cannot |
+ exceed the size allowed by type size_t, which may be 64K or less on some |
+ machines. |
+3. "Virtual" objects. These are large 2-D arrays of JSAMPLEs or JBLOCKs |
+ (typically large enough for the entire image being processed). The |
+ memory manager provides stripwise access to these arrays. On machines |
+ without virtual memory, the rest of the array may be swapped out to a |
+ temporary file. |
+ |
+(Note: JSAMPARRAY and JBLOCKARRAY data structures are a combination of large |
+objects for the data proper and small objects for the row pointers. For |
+convenience and speed, the memory manager provides single routines to create |
+these structures. Similarly, virtual arrays include a small control block |
+and a JSAMPARRAY or JBLOCKARRAY working buffer, all created with one call.) |
+ |
+In the present implementation, virtual arrays are only permitted to have image |
+lifespan. (Permanent lifespan would not be reasonable, and pass lifespan is |
+not very useful since a virtual array's raison d'etre is to store data for |
+multiple passes through the image.) We also expect that only "small" objects |
+will be given permanent lifespan, though this restriction is not required by |
+the memory manager. |
+ |
+In a non-virtual-memory machine, some performance benefit can be gained by |
+making the in-memory buffers for virtual arrays be as large as possible. |
+(For small images, the buffers might fit entirely in memory, so blind |
+swapping would be very wasteful.) The memory manager will adjust the height |
+of the buffers to fit within a prespecified maximum memory usage. In order |
+to do this in a reasonably optimal fashion, the manager needs to allocate all |
+of the virtual arrays at once. Therefore, there isn't a one-step allocation |
+routine for virtual arrays; instead, there is a "request" routine that simply |
+allocates the control block, and a "realize" routine (called just once) that |
+determines space allocation and creates all of the actual buffers. The |
+realize routine must allow for space occupied by non-virtual large objects. |
+(We don't bother to factor in the space needed for small objects, on the |
+grounds that it isn't worth the trouble.) |
+ |
+To support all this, we establish the following protocol for doing business |
+with the memory manager: |
+ 1. Modules must request virtual arrays (which may have only image lifespan) |
+ during the initial setup phase, i.e., in their jinit_xxx routines. |
+ 2. All "large" objects (including JSAMPARRAYs and JBLOCKARRAYs) must also be |
+ allocated during initial setup. |
+ 3. realize_virt_arrays will be called at the completion of initial setup. |
+ The above conventions ensure that sufficient information is available |
+ for it to choose a good size for virtual array buffers. |
+Small objects of any lifespan may be allocated at any time. We expect that |
+the total space used for small objects will be small enough to be negligible |
+in the realize_virt_arrays computation. |
+ |
+In a virtual-memory machine, we simply pretend that the available space is |
+infinite, thus causing realize_virt_arrays to decide that it can allocate all |
+the virtual arrays as full-size in-memory buffers. The overhead of the |
+virtual-array access protocol is very small when no swapping occurs. |
+ |
+A virtual array can be specified to be "pre-zeroed"; when this flag is set, |
+never-yet-written sections of the array are set to zero before being made |
+available to the caller. If this flag is not set, never-written sections |
+of the array contain garbage. (This feature exists primarily because the |
+equivalent logic would otherwise be needed in jdcoefct.c for progressive |
+JPEG mode; we may as well make it available for possible other uses.) |
+ |
+The first write pass on a virtual array is required to occur in top-to-bottom |
+order; read passes, as well as any write passes after the first one, may |
+access the array in any order. This restriction exists partly to simplify |
+the virtual array control logic, and partly because some file systems may not |
+support seeking beyond the current end-of-file in a temporary file. The main |
+implication of this restriction is that rearrangement of rows (such as |
+converting top-to-bottom data order to bottom-to-top) must be handled while |
+reading data out of the virtual array, not while putting it in. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Memory manager internal structure *** |
+ |
+To isolate system dependencies as much as possible, we have broken the |
+memory manager into two parts. There is a reasonably system-independent |
+"front end" (jmemmgr.c) and a "back end" that contains only the code |
+likely to change across systems. All of the memory management methods |
+outlined above are implemented by the front end. The back end provides |
+the following routines for use by the front end (none of these routines |
+are known to the rest of the JPEG code): |
+ |
+jpeg_mem_init, jpeg_mem_term system-dependent initialization/shutdown |
+ |
+jpeg_get_small, jpeg_free_small interface to malloc and free library routines |
+ (or their equivalents) |
+ |
+jpeg_get_large, jpeg_free_large historically was used to interface with |
+ FAR malloc/free on MS-DOS machines; now the |
+ same as jpeg_get_small/jpeg_free_small |
+ |
+jpeg_mem_available estimate available memory |
+ |
+jpeg_open_backing_store create a backing-store object |
+ |
+read_backing_store, manipulate a backing-store object |
+write_backing_store, |
+close_backing_store |
+ |
+On some systems there will be more than one type of backing-store object |
+(specifically, in MS-DOS a backing store file might be an area of extended |
+memory as well as a disk file). jpeg_open_backing_store is responsible for |
+choosing how to implement a given object. The read/write/close routines |
+are method pointers in the structure that describes a given object; this |
+lets them be different for different object types. |
+ |
+It may be necessary to ensure that backing store objects are explicitly |
+released upon abnormal program termination. For example, MS-DOS won't free |
+extended memory by itself. To support this, we will expect the main program |
+or surrounding application to arrange to call self_destruct (typically via |
+jpeg_destroy) upon abnormal termination. This may require a SIGINT signal |
+handler or equivalent. We don't want to have the back end module install its |
+own signal handler, because that would pre-empt the surrounding application's |
+ability to control signal handling. |
+ |
+The IJG distribution includes several memory manager back end implementations. |
+Usually the same back end should be suitable for all applications on a given |
+system, but it is possible for an application to supply its own back end at |
+need. |
+ |
+ |
+*** Implications of DNL marker *** |
+ |
+Some JPEG files may use a DNL marker to postpone definition of the image |
+height (this would be useful for a fax-like scanner's output, for instance). |
+In these files the SOF marker claims the image height is 0, and you only |
+find out the true image height at the end of the first scan. |
+ |
+We could read these files as follows: |
+1. Upon seeing zero image height, replace it by 65535 (the maximum allowed). |
+2. When the DNL is found, update the image height in the global image |
+ descriptor. |
+This implies that control modules must avoid making copies of the image |
+height, and must re-test for termination after each MCU row. This would |
+be easy enough to do. |
+ |
+In cases where image-size data structures are allocated, this approach will |
+result in very inefficient use of virtual memory or much-larger-than-necessary |
+temporary files. This seems acceptable for something that probably won't be a |
+mainstream usage. People might have to forgo use of memory-hogging options |
+(such as two-pass color quantization or noninterleaved JPEG files) if they |
+want efficient conversion of such files. (One could improve efficiency by |
+demanding a user-supplied upper bound for the height, less than 65536; in most |
+cases it could be much less.) |
+ |
+The standard also permits the SOF marker to overestimate the image height, |
+with a DNL to give the true, smaller height at the end of the first scan. |
+This would solve the space problems if the overestimate wasn't too great. |
+However, it implies that you don't even know whether DNL will be used. |
+ |
+This leads to a couple of very serious objections: |
+1. Testing for a DNL marker must occur in the inner loop of the decompressor's |
+ Huffman decoder; this implies a speed penalty whether the feature is used |
+ or not. |
+2. There is no way to hide the last-minute change in image height from an |
+ application using the decoder. Thus *every* application using the IJG |
+ library would suffer a complexity penalty whether it cared about DNL or |
+ not. |
+We currently do not support DNL because of these problems. |
+ |
+A different approach is to insist that DNL-using files be preprocessed by a |
+separate program that reads ahead to the DNL, then goes back and fixes the SOF |
+marker. This is a much simpler solution and is probably far more efficient. |
+Even if one wants piped input, buffering the first scan of the JPEG file needs |
+a lot smaller temp file than is implied by the maximum-height method. For |
+this approach we'd simply treat DNL as a no-op in the decompressor (at most, |
+check that it matches the SOF image height). |
+ |
+We will not worry about making the compressor capable of outputting DNL. |
+Something similar to the first scheme above could be applied if anyone ever |
+wants to make that work. |