GBImg

Just asking, i didn't check the source / try but the web-tool has this bug:

on indexed images with an odd width you are supposed to pad the last nibble so that each row is always a whole number of bytes

Well, I'm not sure of what you mean by asking if I "pad the last nibble" on odd-width indexed image.
In my understanding, padding is adding extra byte correct ? 'Cause that's what I'm doing.

According to tests I've done with my Gamebuino, I've decided to let an extra nibble if the width is odd, because it work as expected when the image is rendered. For example, if I take this french flag with 3x3 pixels, my program will allocate 4x3 memory with the formula [height  * (width+1)/2].

And the outputted code will be :

const uint8_t imageData[] = {
3,3,
0,0,0,
0xFF,
1,

0xFD,0x40,
0xFD,0x40,
0xFD,0x40
};
Image image = Image(imageData);
//index numbers are from edge16 palette

Okay, then you are doing it the correct way, great!

EDIT: i'd recommend using `Image myimg(imgdata);` instead of `Image myimg = Image(imgdata);`

Okay, I'll make the change and commit it :)

EDIT : change made and updated the compiled version

Hey, would you mind explaining why quickly or share a link to the reason why ? I would have used the same syntax as AceyT ^^

Let's break `Image img = Image(blah);` down.

So, what happens here first is that a temporary Image is created, with the `Image(blah);` call. Afterwards a new Image called `img` is created. Next, the temporary Image is been copied over to img, calling the copyconstructor.

When you use `Image img(blah);` it just creates a new image img and initializes it with blah

Theoretically, I would said the same as you, but after some tests on my computers and gamebuino, I got other results.

I don't know if this is a compiler optimization or the standard way of interpreting it in C++, but the syntax `Image img = Image(data);` still call the appropriate constructor, and not a constructor + copy constructor;

EDIT : It would appear to be an authorized optimization. It's kind of like Return Value Optimization but named in this case " Copy Elision (cpp reference) ".
So indeed, for clarity && to avoid surprise, it's better to do a direct initialization. There's so many things that you can think about in C++

It would appear to be an authorized optimization

Yeah, compiler optimizes it, except if you turn off optimizations

So indeed, for clarity && to avoid surprise, it's better to do a direct initialization

Yep!

Also, direct initialization is shorter to type xP