Re: Interest in nt_load_image?

["Juan José García-Ripoll" <juanjose.garciaripoll@gmail.com>]

Hi Juanma,

let me clarify the issues because I think you (and probably others) have
misunderstood what I propose.

I have build GDI+ as a built-in back-end with which to compile Emacs. An
Emacs built with GDI+ requires UTF-16 support and thus will not run on
Windows 98, but it will run on Windows XP on later. GDI+ support is
optional because it can be selected at build time, not because it can be
chosen at compilation time.

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
> it is feasible to check for Windows Imaging Component when Emacs runs
> on modern Windows and use it if available?

Not. That is not how it is intended to work, just like . But that is a non-issue.

>> if GDI+ support is dropped in the near future (which I doubt, given
>> it is also supported by Direct2D), it can be almost trivially
>> replaced with Windows Image Component, which is the more
>> modern interface.
>
> Is there any advantage in using Windows Imaging Component?

WIC and Direct2D are Windows' now standard display components, providing
support for accelerated GPU-based processing. WIC can act as a canvas
for rendering other components and would allow for a more up-to-date
capability in terms of image processing.

> I mean, if as Eli suggests you're going to dynamically check for GDI+
> support and revert back to the current API in Windows 9X,...

Neither of us said this. It is a compilation parameter.

Cheers,

-- 
Juan José García Ripoll
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.com
http://quinfog.hbar.es