---- Reported by brainbr 2008-12-09 12:33:21 ---- Exception in thread "main" java.nio.BufferUnderflowException at java.nio.Buffer.nextGetIndex(Buffer.java:474) at java.nio.HeapByteBuffer.get(HeapByteBuffer.java:117) at com.sun.opengl.impl.mipmap.ScaleInternal.scale_internal_ubyte(ScaleInternal.java:253) at com.sun.opengl.impl.mipmap.BuildMipmap.gluBuild2DMipmapLevelsCore(BuildMipmap.java:535) at com.sun.opengl.impl.mipmap.Mipmap.gluBuild2DMipmaps(Mipmap.java:762) at javax.media.opengl.glu.GLU.gluBuild2DMipmapsJava(GLU.java:1526) at javax.media.opengl.glu.GLU.gluBuild2DMipmaps(GLU.java:1582) at com.sun.opengl.util.texture.Texture.updateImage(Texture.java:523) at com.sun.opengl.util.texture.Texture.updateImage(Texture.java:381) at com.sun.opengl.util.texture.Texture.<init>(Texture.java:182) at com.sun.opengl.util.texture.TextureIO.newTexture(TextureIO.java:445) at com.sun.opengl.util.texture.TextureIO.newTexture(TextureIO.java:465) at Mipmap.main(Mipmap.java:24) ---- Additional Comments From brainbr 2008-12-09 12:34:24 ---- Created an attachment Test case ---- Additional Comments From brainbr 2008-12-09 12:36:02 ---- Created an attachment Test image ---- Additional Comments From brainbr 2009-04-13 13:58:26 ---- Created an attachment Here is my patch to fix this bug --- Bug imported by sgothel@jausoft.com 2010-03-24 07:51 EDT --- This bug was previously known as _bug_ 365 at https://jogl.dev.java.net/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=365 Imported an attachment (id=135) Imported an attachment (id=136) Imported an attachment (id=137) The original submitter of attachment 135 [details] is unknown. Reassigning to the person who moved it here: sgothel@jausoft.com. The original submitter of attachment 136 [details] is unknown. Reassigning to the person who moved it here: sgothel@jausoft.com. The original submitter of attachment 137 [details] is unknown. Reassigning to the person who moved it here: sgothel@jausoft.com.
I think this bug has already been fixed in JOGL 2.0. Someone should test again with the provided image.
Created attachment 459 [details] Updated testcase for Jogl 2.0 Tested against jogl2.0-rc11 on Windows. Same result: java.nio.BufferUnderflowException at java.nio.Buffer.nextGetIndex(Buffer.java:472) at java.nio.DirectByteBuffer.get(DirectByteBuffer.java:219) at jogamp.opengl.glu.mipmap.ScaleInternal.scale_internal_ubyte(ScaleInternal.java:255) at jogamp.opengl.glu.mipmap.BuildMipmap.gluBuild2DMipmapLevelsCore(BuildMipmap.java:538) at jogamp.opengl.glu.mipmap.Mipmap.gluBuild2DMipmaps(Mipmap.java:773) at javax.media.opengl.glu.gl2.GLUgl2.gluBuild2DMipmapsJava(GLUgl2.java:442) at javax.media.opengl.glu.gl2.GLUgl2.gluBuild2DMipmaps(GLUgl2.java:498) at com.jogamp.opengl.util.texture.Texture.updateImage(Texture.java:583) at com.jogamp.opengl.util.texture.Texture.updateImage(Texture.java:417) at com.jogamp.opengl.util.texture.Texture.<init>(Texture.java:182) at com.jogamp.opengl.util.texture.TextureIO.newTexture(TextureIO.java:447) at com.jogamp.opengl.util.texture.TextureIO.newTexture(TextureIO.java:530) at com.kablab.jogl.test.Mipmap$1.init(Mipmap.java:42) at jogamp.opengl.GLDrawableHelper.init(GLDrawableHelper.java:332) at jogamp.opengl.GLDrawableHelper.init(GLDrawableHelper.java:352) at javax.media.opengl.awt.GLCanvas$6.run(GLCanvas.java:966) at jogamp.opengl.GLDrawableHelper.invokeGLImpl(GLDrawableHelper.java:653) at jogamp.opengl.GLDrawableHelper.invokeGL(GLDrawableHelper.java:594) at javax.media.opengl.awt.GLCanvas$8.run(GLCanvas.java:996) at javax.media.opengl.Threading.invoke(Threading.java:193) at javax.media.opengl.awt.GLCanvas.display(GLCanvas.java:449) at javax.media.opengl.awt.GLCanvas.paint(GLCanvas.java:499) at sun.awt.RepaintArea.paintComponent(RepaintArea.java:248) at sun.awt.RepaintArea.paint(RepaintArea.java:224) at sun.awt.windows.WComponentPeer.handleEvent(WComponentPeer.java:308) at java.awt.Component.dispatchEventImpl(Component.java:4729) at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:4481) at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEventImpl(EventQueue.java:648) at java.awt.EventQueue.access$000(EventQueue.java:84) at java.awt.EventQueue$1.run(EventQueue.java:607) at java.awt.EventQueue$1.run(EventQueue.java:605) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.security.AccessControlContext$1.doIntersectionPrivilege(AccessControlContext.java:87) at java.security.AccessControlContext$1.doIntersectionPrivilege(AccessControlContext.java:98) at java.awt.EventQueue$2.run(EventQueue.java:621) at java.awt.EventQueue$2.run(EventQueue.java:619) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.security.AccessControlContext$1.doIntersectionPrivilege(AccessControlContext.java:87) at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:618) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(EventDispatchThread.java:269) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(EventDispatchThread.java:184) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java:174) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:169) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:161) at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:122)
(In reply to comment #2) > Created attachment 459 [details] > Updated testcase for Jogl 2.0 > > Tested against jogl2.0-rc11 on Windows. Same result: > Michael (== Mike on IRC?), as I was asked on IRC: (09:03:07 AM) [Mike]: sgothel: is there something you didn't like about the patch in https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=365 ? (09:05:52 AM) [Mike]: talk about a confusing class to walk through at first... Yes, attachment 137 [details] is not a patch and it seems that the maintainer of the patch is n/a. I see your test in attachment 459 [details], and I assume 'you know what you are doing and testing' in general. So if I could ask you to make your test a true jog unit test and add another case which would pass w/o this patch (positive / negative). Then it would be great to make attachment 137 [details] a real unified patch, best: unified diff incl. your unit tests. Even better git pull. The git stuff is not that important, but whats important is one who is able to validate the change. Hence I take the freedom and make you the maintainer of this bug, and I will merge your changes w/ above quality constraints. Thank you.
Created attachment 508 [details] TestCase for ScaleInternal Problem This test case run's through most of the ScaleInternal functions for a single column image.
Thank you Michael, merged your last pull request and add your unit test manually (you are author). I close this bug now - if this is not correct, pls re-open. Thank you!