Version info should include 64 or 32 bit build

Post any defects you find in the released or beta versions of the ImageMagick software here. Include the ImageMagick version, OS, and any command-line required to reproduce the problem. Got a patch for a bug? Post it here.
Post Reply
User avatar
whugemann
Posts: 294
Joined: 2011-03-28T07:11:31-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308
Location: Münster, Germany 52°N,7.6°E

Version info should include 64 or 32 bit build

Post by whugemann » 2013-11-07T03:22:13-07:00

I have been using IM under Windows since XP, both on 32 and 64 bit computers. My Windows scripts (batch or VBS) are used by about 30 different users, working in different places.

The command line option -version does not provide really much information and -verbose does not seem to change this.

Especially when working with GhostScript (also either 32 or 64 bit), problems can arise from different bit depths of the two programs involved. Therefore it would be good if -version would provide some information about that. When revising this information, one might also think about providing information about the various build options, i.e. quantum range, static linkage, etc.
Wolfgang Hugemann

User avatar
dlemstra
Posts: 1576
Joined: 2013-05-04T15:28:54-07:00
Authentication code: 6789
Contact:

Re: Version info should include 64 or 32 bit build

Post by dlemstra » 2013-11-07T03:42:51-07:00

We added this recently, this is the result from my command line with the latest beta:

Code: Select all

C:\Test>convert -version
Version: ImageMagick 6.8.7-5 Q16 x86 2013-11-03 http://www.imagemagick.org
Copyright: Copyright (C) 1999-2013 ImageMagick Studio LLC
Features: DPC OpenMP
Delegates: bzlib freetype jbig jng jp2 jpeg lcms lqr pangocairo png ps tiff webp x xml zlib
You can get the Quantum range from the Q16 part in Version: . It might be a good idea to add Modules to Features: to determine if it is a static or dynamic build.
.NET + ImageMagick = Magick.NET https://github.com/dlemstra/Magick.NET, @MagickNET, Donate

User avatar
glennrp
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2006-04-01T08:16:32-07:00
Location: Maryland 39.26.30N 76.16.01W

Re: Version info should include 64 or 32 bit build

Post by glennrp » 2013-11-07T11:06:16-07:00

Doesn't the "x86" in the version info tell you it's built for a 32-bit machine?
Curiously, mine (built by me on a 64-bit Ubuntu platform) doesn't have that info: (I guess the platform info was added *very* recently!)
The build by "magick" on studio says edit:
After building a freshly downloaded copy on my computer I get the "x86_64" info:

User avatar
whugemann
Posts: 294
Joined: 2011-03-28T07:11:31-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308
Location: Münster, Germany 52°N,7.6°E

Re: Version info should include 64 or 32 bit build

Post by whugemann » 2013-11-12T03:31:55-07:00

dlemstra wrote:We added this recently, this is the result from my command line with the latest beta:

Code: Select all

[/quote]
I guess "recently" has to be taken very literally: Only the latest official build 6.8.7-5 behaves this way ;-)
Anyway, I appreciate that you changed that, now making the remote error analysis somewhat easier.

When installing this new version, I saw that you now suggest the existing IM program directory (%PROGRAMFILES%\ImageMagick on my computer) as the standard installation directory -- very good!

The installation routine however still suggest to add IM's program folder to the PATH variable, although this addition has already been made during the last installation. The installation routine then behaves correct, as it doesn't add IM's path a second time to the PATH variable. But the suggestion always makes you wonder whether you should uncheck this option, in order to avoid adding it twice. Thus it would probably make sense to check this first and skip this question if it has been answered during the last installation.

When installing IM over an existing installation (as I always do), the installation routine prompts you whether it should replace the XML files -- one question for each XML file. It would be convenient if there would be a check option "use this choice for all", like when copying files in the Windows explorer. (I don't know what the exact phrase is in English, as I use the German Windows version.)
Wolfgang Hugemann

Post Reply