View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7930 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Norm.Campbell
I need to take another look at this. I am now able to reproduce the failure.
The failure does not appear to be in RGB@ nor DRAW_LINE@. Maybe it is in one of the "DIB block" routines when used in a 64 bit application.
I had assumed that you were reporting a regression but this does not now appear to be the case.
In the meantime there is nothing lost by only using the 32 bit version. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Norm.Campbell
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 66
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul
I was about to send you a response, noting that I'd done some more checking, and found that my computer was reporting a memory error when it rebooted, and that perhaps the difference in memory accessed between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions was the problem. Then I noticed that the posts had gone over to a second page, and saw your latest comments.
It's good to know that the problem is real. As you note, I can work around it using the 32 bit version, and I've got to quite like the yellow background for some of my plots.
Merry Christmas
Norm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7930 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fault is in the 64 bit version of RECOVER_DIB_BLOCK@. This has now been fixed for the next release of clearwin64.dll. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Norm.Campbell
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 66
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul
Just to let others (and you) know that replacing
PUT_DIB_BLOCK@ ( flno, ... )
with
nFUNC = Export_Image@ ( flno )
fixes the problem.
I also replaced DRAW_LINE@ with DRAW_LINE_BETWEEN@, and removed
INCLUDE < DBOS.IN >.
Thank you for fixing this for me.
Happy New Year
Norm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John-Silver
Joined: 30 Jul 2013 Posts: 1520 Location: Aerospace Valley
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul wrote:
Quote: | In the meantime there is nothing lost by only using the 32 bit version. |
... which begeth the 64000$ question ...
... then why oh wh is it worth the effort to create a 64bit version of ftn95 ? _________________ ''Computers (HAL and MARVIN excepted) are incredibly rigid. They question nothing. Especially input data.Human beings are incredibly trusting of computers and don't check input data. Together cocking up even the simplest calculation ... " |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Norm.Campbell
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 66
|
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
To take your comment seriously, I quite like the 64-bit version.
I spend a fair bit of time writing code to process remotely sensed images. I can usually just fit my images in in 32-bit mode, but when there is a bug in my code (and that still seems to happen all too frequently) then it is a pain having to cut down my array sizes so that I can find the bug.
So far, the 64-bit version has alleviated that problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|