Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Fixed 'missing glyph doesn't use fontconfig config substitutions' bug

2016-11-23 Thread Ian Remmler
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:05:55PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> Ok, your patch seems correct, but I would like to know if your patch solves
> the issue of the commit 4242027, because in this case we can remove the
> changes of that commit, which are a bit ugly. Can you verify it?

I reverted 4242027, applied this patch, and it does indeed fix the
problem for me.

-- 
- Ian.



Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Fixed 'missing glyph doesn't use fontconfig config substitutions' bug

2016-11-23 Thread k0ga

> I basically just copied the guts out of XftFontMatch[1] and saved
> the intermediate configured FcPattern. Could be related to the bug that
> inspired commit 4242027.
> 

Ok, your patch seems correct, but I would like to know if your patch solves
the issue of the commit 4242027, because in this case we can remove the
changes of that commit, which are a bit ugly. Can you verify it?

Regards,




[hackers] [st][PATCH] Fixed 'missing glyph doesn't use fontconfig config substitutions' bug

2016-11-22 Thread spencer . phippen
From: Spencer Phippen 

XftFontMatch does display-specific font configuration (commit 528241a).
Nice. Unfortunately, when we switched from FcFontMatch, we also stopped
storing the post-Fc{Config,Default}Substitute FcPattern for future
lookups. The result is that if a glyph isn't found in the primary font,
secondary font lookups use the original FcPattern, not the configured
one. If you have custom fontconfig rules (like me), this can be
disappointing.

I basically just copied the guts out of XftFontMatch[1] and saved
the intermediate configured FcPattern. Could be related to the bug that
inspired commit 4242027.

[1]: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libXft/tree/src/xftfont.c
---
 st.c | 22 +++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index e50e884..031272f 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -3373,16 +3373,32 @@ xgeommasktogravity(int mask)
 int
 xloadfont(Font *f, FcPattern *pattern)
 {
+   FcPattern *configured;
FcPattern *match;
FcResult result;
XGlyphInfo extents;
int wantattr, haveattr;
 
-   match = XftFontMatch(xw.dpy, xw.scr, pattern, &result);
-   if (!match)
+   /*
+* Manually configure instead of calling XftMatchFont
+* so that we can use the configured pattern for
+* "missing glyph" lookups.
+*/
+   configured = FcPatternDuplicate(pattern);
+   if (!configured)
+   return 1;
+
+   FcConfigSubstitute(NULL, configured, FcMatchPattern);
+   XftDefaultSubstitute(xw.dpy, xw.scr, configured);
+
+   match = FcFontMatch(NULL, configured, &result);
+   if (!match) {
+   FcPatternDestroy(configured);
return 1;
+   }
 
if (!(f->match = XftFontOpenPattern(xw.dpy, match))) {
+   FcPatternDestroy(configured);
FcPatternDestroy(match);
return 1;
}
@@ -3414,7 +3430,7 @@ xloadfont(Font *f, FcPattern *pattern)
strlen(ascii_printable), &extents);
 
f->set = NULL;
-   f->pattern = FcPatternDuplicate(pattern);
+   f->pattern = configured;
 
f->ascent = f->match->ascent;
f->descent = f->match->descent;
-- 
2.10.2