#3 Q-7.11 is incompatible with ImageMagick now

open
None
5
2009-03-15
2009-02-28
No

Theese symbols do not exist in ImageMagick now. Looks like major API changes :(
/usr/lib/q/magick.so U ScaleQuantumToShort
/usr/lib/q/magick.so U ScaleShortToQuantum

Discussion

  • Albert Graef

    Albert Graef - 2009-03-15
    • assigned_to: nobody --> agraef
     
  • Albert Graef

    Albert Graef - 2009-03-15

    > Looks like major API changes :(

    Indeed. The following #define's (pilfered from http://www.ysnb.net/meadow/meadow-develop/2002/msg01069.html\) may help; they are to be added to magick.c. This assumes that your ImageMagick library was built with 16 bit color depth. Can you please try whether this works for you?

    #define ScaleQuantumToShort(quantum) ((unsigned short) (quantum))
    #define ScaleShortToQuantum(value) ((Quantum) (value))

    Other than that, I can only suggest to try Pure (Q's successor, available at http://pure-lang.googlecode.com/\). Pure doesn't have an ImageMagick module right now, but it's very easy to build one using the pure-gen interface generator. Actually I have already done this, I just haven't released it (yet). Just let me know if I should send it to you.

     
  • George Kouryachy

    Well, this seems to work, thank you. I think one probably need to bother with GetMagickQuantumDepth / SetQuantumDepth to make play more fair.

    Does the advice about your new language mean that you have abandoned the Q development in favor of Pure? I have an intention to bring back Q and it's library collection to my Linux distribution (they were occasionally dropped one day). But now it looks like Pure is better and more vivid specimen, doesn't it?

     
  • Albert Graef

    Albert Graef - 2009-03-15

    > I think one probably need to bother with GetMagickQuantumDepth / SetQuantumDepth to make play more fair.

    Right. If you can put together a patch, please toss it my way so that I can commit it. Thanks.

    > But now it looks like Pure is better and more vivid specimen, doesn't it?

    Certainly. Q doesn't support 64 bit architectures, and it runs much slower. Pure fully supports 64 bit, has a JIT compiler, and interfacing to C is much easier. Also, the built-in matrix type makes working with raw pixel or audio data a breeze. Packages and ports are already available for OSX and SUSE Linux, Fedora is in the works. In a sense, Pure *is* the next version of Q, so this is where all the action is now. If you're interested in Q then you should definitely take a look at it. There's also a mailing list/Google group at http://groups.google.com/group/pure-lang.

     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks