[argyllcms] Re: Source code question

  • From: Ulrich Oertel <uli.oertel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:38:44 +0200

Hi Graeme,

thanks for your fast and knowledgeable answer.

I guess you could do that, although structurally XY instruments are
intended to be implemented in the driver code, and chartread then deals
with them generically. For something like you are proposing (or the io), the
more natural way of adding that support would be as a psudo XY instrument
which is then a shim over the i1Pro driver.
I have had no idea about that but you convinced me. I know (from your article "Modifying the i1i0 table for the i1pro2 <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc2/i0mod.html>") that you probably have implemented the i1io instrument but I did not find that, did you? The next question is: How to implement such a pseudo i1io, and who will do it?

The program running on the arduino microcontroller can be controlled via com ports (though it is connected via usb port).

Possibly, cou can create a general (for use of people with different solutions) pseudo i1io in the driver. This then can call another program, or dll, which tells the hardware what to do. What do you think?
Unfortunately, in the past I only worked with Pascal (Delphi) and VB .net. In 
my first
attempt to recompile chartread (VS 2013 Express) I got error messages for lines 

sv &= ~inst_stat_savdrd_chart
Hmm. At least C is 5 x easier than C++ to learn, but porting to a new compile
environment is not fun, and might be an extreme test for a novice in the 

I haven't tried to compile Argyll in anything beyond VC++10, and I'm guessing
that VS 2013 Express won't install on my XP development machine without
some cunning & effort. So I could suggest that you could probably more easily
compile using MingW, but I know that is not going to be very attractive
for someone used to using Visual Studio.
Today I tried to understand, what I have to do with JAM in order to use MinGW. However, I must acknowledge that I did not understand that. So, if there is a possibility to avoid recompilation I would be very happy...
The error message is:
error C2676: Binärer Operator '&=': 'inst_stat_savdrd' definiert diesen 
Operator oder eine
Konvertierung in einen für den vordefinierten Operator geeigneten Typ nicht
The above message seems to hint at some problem with C++ changes leaking into 
compilation. Are you sure you are compiling the Argyll source as C and not C++ ?
It was C++ (I did not know that this makes a difference) but the errors persist when setting it to C. I recognized that the compiler seems to not accept enum as integer for these binary operations, it has nothing to do with the "~" operator.

Best regards


Other related posts: