1) Is there some reason why the chip specific compiler options are being
selected for building? Something like -fast seems like a much better
choice than hard coding some random Ultra 2 chip settings. I just noticed
that.
2) does this work on x86? Maybe i'll find out when I get home. Sparc
hates it.
dartmouth] KBE 775 $ svn diff Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/
Index: Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/patch.sh
===================================================================
--- Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/patch.sh (revision 1770)
+++ Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/patch.sh (working copy)
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-:
+gpatch -R -p0 < Solaris/diffs/diff1
+gpatch -R -p0 < Solaris/diffs/diff2
Index: Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff1
===================================================================
--- Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff1 (revision 0)
+++ Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff1 (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+*** src/otf.h Fri Apr 18 15:59:34 2008
+--- src/otf.h Wed Apr 16 14:31:25 2008
+***************
+*** 28,39 ****
+ extern "C" {
+ #endif
+
+- #include "config.h"
+-
+- #ifdef HAVE_ALLOCA_H
+- #include <alloca.h>
+- #endif
+-
+ /* Version name of this library. */
+ #define LIBOTF_VERSION "0.9.6"
+
+--- 28,33 ----
Index: Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff2
===================================================================
--- Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff2 (revision 0)
+++ Dude/LIBOTF/0.9.6/Solaris/diffs/diff2 (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+*** example/otftobdf.c Fri Apr 18 15:58:32 2008
+--- example/otftobdf.c Wed Apr 16 14:31:25 2008
+***************
+*** 22,28 ****
+ 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
+
+ #include <stdio.h>
+! #include "otf.h"
+ #include <ft2build.h>
+ #include FT_FREETYPE_H
+
+--- 22,28 ----
+ 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
+
+ #include <stdio.h>
+!
+ #include <ft2build.h>
+ #include FT_FREETYPE_H
+
-- Dave
