feat: Support BigTiff #32
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
this is green cargo nextest run --all-features --lib _bif_tif_exif_expects
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000328.shtml
A few tests are failing, but those are fixable.Still a few things to do, especially IFD vs IFD8 for sub-IFD
Pushing up to see if this change of API is acceptable?
If not changing u32 -> u64 for all the IFD offsets, either we need the TiffHeader to have two variants. TiffHeader could become an enum, or TiffHeader, ExifIter, etc could use generics to allow the offsets to be u32 or u64.
If changing all IFD offsets to be u64, the pub functions will need to check that for "Small" Tiffs the offset provided is lower than u32::MAX.