Hi, In Chromium, there's a bug being discussed right now about what the expected return value of FT_Get_Advance() is:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=66073 Testing suggests that it returns glyph->linearHoriAdvance, not glyph->advance.x. This is understandable, but unintuitive and not documented. In fact, the following suggests that FT_Get_Advance() may in fact take hinting into account: /*************************************************************************/ /* */ /* <Const> */ /* FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY */ /* */ /* <Description> */ /* A bit-flag to be OR-ed with the `flags' parameter of the */ /* @FT_Get_Advance and @FT_Get_Advances functions. */ /* */ /* If set, it indicates that you want these functions to fail if the */ /* corresponding hinting mode or font driver doesn't allow for very */ /* quick advance computation. */ /* */ /* Typically, glyphs which are either unscaled, unhinted, bitmapped, */ /* or light-hinted can have their advance width computed very */ /* quickly. */ /* */ /* Normal and bytecode hinted modes, which require loading, scaling, */ /* and hinting of the glyph outline, are extremely slow by */ /* comparison. */ /* */ #define FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY 0x20000000UL But apparently it doesn't. At any rate, would be nice to document what exactly is it that FT_Get_Advance() returns, and what tests can the client use to determine whether what FT_Get_Advance() returns matches glyph->advance.x. Cheers, behdad _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
