On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>>> >>>> (void *)(((char *)0) + (x)) >>>> >>> >>> Wow! Very cool! >>> >>> >>> I'm fairly sure that's undefined in C standard as well. > > My first impression also...
Can we properly use the FT_List data field as an actual pointer to the glyph index instead of stuffing the integer into the pointer? That is the root cause of this mess. It does look like integer to pointer conversion is ill-defined and should be avoided. Here is another warning quote from C99 (6.3.2.3): An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation. _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
