Building x64 from source on Windows

Questions and postings pertaining to the development of ImageMagick, feature enhancements, and ImageMagick internals. ImageMagick source code and algorithms are discussed here. Usage questions which are too arcane for the normal user list should also be posted here.
Post Reply
thany
Posts: 6
Joined: 2014-01-10T07:23:40-07:00
Authentication code: 6789

Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by thany »

I'm trying to build ImageMagick x64 on Windows from source. Configure.exe works just fine, and I selected Dynamic MT build, 64-bit distribution, and Enable HDRI. The rest I left default. On the next screen, I also left things default. Then, the configure appears to work normally.

Then I open the VisualStaticMT project (still following the instructions to the letter), and hittin Build->Build Solution. The crazy thing is that the build finished with no errors. I get all the expected executables in the bin directory. And they even work. Great!

Except that it has built the x86 version. Why? I really did put a tick next to "Build x64 edition". I tried again just to make sure. Should I do something else to get an x64 edition?
Already tried both a Release build and a Debug build - from the surface they appear to be identical, at least in architecture they are.

I'm using Visual Studio 2012 Pro on Windows 7 x64. ImageMagick source distro 6.8.8.

Please note that I'm not a C/C++ programmer at all, so I may not be familiar with all of the jargon.
The reason I'm building IM myself is because I want the HDRI option, which is not in the binary distro.
User avatar
dlemstra
Posts: 1570
Joined: 2013-05-04T15:28:54-07:00
Authentication code: 6789
Contact:

Re: Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by dlemstra »

and I selected Dynamic MT build
Then I open the VisualStaticMT project
Are you building the static or the dynamic version?
.NET + ImageMagick = Magick.NET https://github.com/dlemstra/Magick.NET, @MagickNET, Donate
thany
Posts: 6
Joined: 2014-01-10T07:23:40-07:00
Authentication code: 6789

Re: Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by thany »

I honestly didn't see the link :X
I'm trying to build the dynamic version. Should I not? Because I noticed the static version produces fairly large executables, and I was hoping the dynamic version would produce DLL's to be shared between the exe's.

Anyway, VisualStaticMT doesn't sound right, now that you mention it. And there is indeed a VisualDynamicMT in the same directory. Lemme try that.

/edit
Yeah that's not the one. Building that produces hundreds of "No such file or directory" errors. Looks like it cannot find *any* of the .h files.

/edit2
Btw, a binary x64-Q16 release with HDRI enabled would suffice, too :)
User avatar
dlemstra
Posts: 1570
Joined: 2013-05-04T15:28:54-07:00
Authentication code: 6789
Contact:

Re: Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by dlemstra »

Did you set your target platform to x64 instead of win32 when you build the VisualDynamicMT solution?
.NET + ImageMagick = Magick.NET https://github.com/dlemstra/Magick.NET, @MagickNET, Donate
snibgo
Posts: 12159
Joined: 2010-01-23T23:01:33-07:00
Authentication code: 1151
Location: England, UK

Re: Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by snibgo »

thany wrote:Btw, a binary x64-Q16 release with HDRI enabled would suffice, too :)
If you don't mind bleeding-edge, v7 alpha pecompiled for Windows does HDRI, and it is x64. Available from http://imagemagick.org/download/beta/ . It has no convert.exe. Use magick.exe instead.
snibgo's IM pages: im.snibgo.com
thany
Posts: 6
Joined: 2014-01-10T07:23:40-07:00
Authentication code: 6789

Re: Building x64 from source on Windows

Post by thany »

dlemstra wrote:Did you set your target platform to x64 instead of win32 when you build the VisualDynamicMT solution?
No, I didn't touch it. Just opened it, and hit Build Solution...
snibgo wrote:If you don't mind bleeding-edge, v7 alpha pecompiled for Windows does HDRI, and it is x64. Available from http://imagemagick.org/download/beta/ . It has no convert.exe. Use magick.exe instead.
Thanks, I'll try if that one works for me. It's not mission-ciritical, so I might as well use a beta if it works.
Post Reply