Georg Fleischmann wrote:
> Well, it doesn't work.
Thinko on my part. The range 'r' has post-change indices, so I need to
adjust before comparing.
> That's all I can say, as I have not much knowledge of the internals here.
> Here are the involved variables of the method for my test case:
>
> layo
Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> However, in the original patch, the wrap-around is just ugly; it isn't
> really a problem since the wrap-around behavior of unsigned ints is
> defined by the c standard.
It may not please the educated eye, but it works :-)
Also, the patch doesn't need a cast which woul
Hi Fred,
> I think you did spot a real problem here, but your solution just doesn't
> look right. An unsigned number never should be allowed to wrap around.
> What about a check like this:
With casts like this it works:
if (layout_char > r.location)
{
if ((int)layout_char +
Fred Kiefer wrote:
> Georg Fleischmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here is a little patch for the NSLayoutManager fixing a problem with
> > layout_char. layout_char is unsigned but may become "negative", thus flipping
> > over to huge positive. The huge positive value then is not sattisfying the '<'
> >
Georg Fleischmann wrote:
Hi,
here is a little patch for the NSLayoutManager fixing a problem with
layout_char. layout_char is unsigned but may become "negative", thus flipping
over to huge positive. The huge positive value then is not sattisfying the '<'
comparison.
Georg
2004-03-10 Georg
Hi,
here is a little patch for the NSLayoutManager fixing a problem with
layout_char. layout_char is unsigned but may become "negative", thus flipping
over to huge positive. The huge positive value then is not sattisfying the '<'
comparison.
Georg
2004-03-10 Georg Fleischmann
* g
