Samuel Williams wrote:
>> however other tasks (like hacking with Freetype being one
>> subcomponent which happens to be hacked on; or having Freetype being
>> build by various toolchains) might plainly break if you do that.
>
> Can you give a use-case of this point?
Project with various targets a
Hi guys,
Samuel Williams wrote:
> The main issue, as demonstrated, is that the mtime of the file is not
> preserved. This means that build tools that depend on mtime (e.g. make)
> fail to work as efficiently as possible
Mmmh, the definition of 'efficiency' here is not as universal as you
might see
Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> In this particular font the glyph width is larger than it advance,
> which is unusual.
... but it is typical of Devanagari fonts, and in general of several
"hanging" scripts, where the upper bar is required to connect at both
ends for most glyphs.
I am not sure if it
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Using anything but a shared library for FreeType just seems to be begging
> for pain [...]
Unlike many high-profile packages, Freetype is also used on (mostly
embedded) platforms where shared libraries just do not exist.
Also if some vendor has a design which, perhaps fo
Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> Why do you butcher perfectly legal code C-code?
> You problem is in the tool - not it in FreeType.
This is not fair. The exercise do show some areas in Freetype which code
will be clearly made better after the corrections proposed by Vinnie.
Examples are the #undef pp
Vinnie wrote:
> I've been wracking my brains and trying to come up with every possibility
> but I have given up - what is the utility of these lines:
>
> #ifdef FT2_BUILD_LIBRARY
> #define FT_INTERNAL_INTERNAL_H
> #include FT_INTERNAL_INTERNAL_H
> #endif /* FT2_BUILD_LIBRARY */
>
> versus
>
> #i
Vinnie wrote:
>> Not sure I understand all the point, but it seems to me an issue at
>> software engineering here.
> The current use-case for FreeType, and what I believe that developers
> here have the most experience with, is as a shared library on a GNU/Linux
> type system.
>
> My use-case, and
[ If your reader did not already told you: warning, long post! ]
Vinnie wrote:
> I'm interested in building an "amalgamated" version of FreeType.
If I understand correctly your quest, Freetype 1 used to have such an
option ("single object file", a.k.a freetype.[co]); in fact it was/is
even the bas
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> While looking at the whole issue more closely, I've identified at
> least four bugs :-( One is extremely serious, making
> `FT_Get_Advance' return wrongly scaled values if fast advance
> loading isn't available (now fixed in git).
Yesterday I was away from my mail, but I a
Hi Toshiya-san,
Microsoft's compiler bails out while compiling src/gxvalid/gxvalid.c
cl /Za /D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE /Iobjs /I..\freetype2\builds\win32
/I..\freetype2\include /nologo /c /Ox /W3 /WX /DFT2_BUILD_LIBRARY
/DFT_CONFIG_MODULES_H="" /I..\freetype2\src\gxvalid
/Foobjs\gxvalid.obj ..\
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> I am not sure (so comment are welcome), but also I remember that a
>> property of "light rendering" was to not change the advance (i.e.,
>> enforce AF_SCALER_FLAG_NO_ADVANCE); see also
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2008-09/msg0.html;
>> under
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> 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
If I understand correctly the bug report, particularly the advance.cc
snippet (and without peeki
Sean McBride wrote:
Clang is an interesting tool to discover that sort of gotchas.
> 360 if ( (FT_ULong)(type->flags - FT_INT_MIN) > FT_UINT_MAX )
This one should really look like
if ( (FT_ULong)type->flags - FT_INT_MIN > FT_UINT_MAX )
according to ANSI C : since FT_INT
[ Sorry if it appears duplicated, I sent first with the wrong name. ]
Aaron Parr wrote:
> Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread,
Indeed ancient! However that thread
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2006-10/msg00026.html)
was about Toshiya-san providing us an updated version of the
Aaron Parr wrote:
> Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread,
Indeed ancient! However that thread
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2006-10/msg00026.html)
was about Toshiya-san providing us an updated version of the autoconf
machinery, dealing correctly with a (then new) locally-built h
Werner wrote:
> Antoine wrote:
>> On the other hand, just modifying a file to update the year of
>> copyright assignment is not fully correct IMHO if there are not any
>> substantial modifications in the file itself.
> This is not correct. See here for more:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/
Infinality wrote:
> While I was doing some merging of patches on my system, I noticed that
> 2.4.7 has at least some of the copyright headers showing years up to
> 2010 only. The patch I was working with, which is older than 2.4.7,
> has through 2011.
>
> 2.4.7:
> /* Copyright 1996-2001, 2002, 20
Hello guys!
After some (!) time without looking attentively into Freetype, I tried
to compile it with Visual C++ 9 (2008), using the integrated
("solution", "project") framework.
And I got an annoying warning (not fatal, just annoying):
C:\MSDev90\VC\include\sal.h(108) : warning C4001: nonstanda
Kumar.K wrote:
I want one main function, with in that function what are all should
I call? So I can give my file path name for getting pixel data?
Freetype is a library, there is no main() function.
Look at ft2demos-L.M.N.tar.bz2 (resp. ftdmoLMN.zip) for examples of
small programs which use t
Russell Hay wrote:
Apologies if this is a much revisited topic, but I noticed that in the
archives of this mailing list, there are some end dates stated for the
relevant Apple patents;
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2006-11/msg6.html
they are, respectively, 1992-10-
Bevan, David wrote:
> We recently received the following advice concerning these patents:
>
> "[During May] the patents expired in the UK and most of the world.
I am aware of the particular case of the US patents (files before 1996 so
grant-date+17 as top date.) AFAIK, the other patents worldwide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, you've done a great and detailled analysis.
> Thinking about a code like:
>
> struct a_struct_ {
> jmp_buf jb_memb;
> } volatile* a_struct_ptr;
>
> volatile jmp_buf* dest = &( a_struct_ptr->jb_memb );
...
> For "volatile jmp_buf* dest", according to the error messag
annubius hosted at hotmail.com wrote:
> For the most part it's building but I run into an error
> with zconf.h. Since it includes unistd.h it has the declaration of
> getopt which conflicts with stdio.h.
This is a clear violation of the Posix standard, as and
are two standard include files to b
mpsuzuki wrote:
I welcome your report even if it looks like unsuccessful, because it shows
some important points about Freetype target environments.
> Just I've tried to build FreeType2 for 16bit ELKS,
> with Bruce's C compiler.
[ @Werner: it is definitively a different beast from Borland's bcc
On Thursday, July 10th, 2008, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Freetype effectively expects 8-bit char (I am not sure 9-bit chars
or 16-bit chars could work or not, but I believe nobody checks it
anyway).
This is not correct. Some time ago a guy asked for support of 16-bit
chars, and support for it has
On Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 , mpsuzuki wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:56:12 +0200
Antoine Leca wrote:
On Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, mpsuzuki noted:
On many platforms, gcc does not set the value __STDC_VERSION__
by default. Users have to set by -std=xxx option.
On the other hand, it does not
Hi Suzuki-san,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:39:58 +0200
Antoine Leca wrote:
There is a real defect with the above approach: imagine a conforming C90
compiler with 32 bits being the widest type; on such a compiler, cpp would
evaluate the quantities using 32-bit arithmetic
So my revised proposal
On Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 , mpsuzuki wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:56:12 +0200
Antoine Leca wrote:
On Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, mpsuzuki noted:
On many platforms, gcc does not set the value __STDC_VERSION__
by default. Users have to set by -std=xxx option.
On the other hand, it does not
Hi Suzuki-san,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:39:58 +0200
Antoine Leca wrote:
There is a real defect with the above approach: imagine a conforming C90
compiler with 32 bits being the widest type; on such a compiler, cpp would
evaluate the quantities using 32-bit arithmetic
So my revised proposal
On Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, Sean McBride wrote:
On 7/1/08 10:19 PM, Werner LEMBERG said:
Can freetype use C99 features?
Not in general, but I don't object to put it into proper
#ifdef...#endif blocks -- AFAIK, C99 can be checked by a preprocessor
macro, right?
Yes. __STDC_VERSION__ is defi
Hi all,
Sorry for missing this thread, and sorry to respond in such an ugly way: I
am far away from my mail...
On Monday, June 30th, 2008, mpsuzuki wrote:
Taking a glance on FreeType2 sources, it seems that the required
information is "which type (or no type) is sufficient to store
32bit and
On Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, Sean McBride wrote:
On 7/1/08 10:19 PM, Werner LEMBERG said:
Can freetype use C99 features?
Not in general, but I don't object to put it into proper
#ifdef...#endif blocks -- AFAIK, C99 can be checked by a preprocessor
macro, right?
Yes. __STDC_VERSION__ is defi
Hi all,
Sorry for missing this thread, and sorry to respond in such an ugly way: I
am
far away from my mail...
On Monday, June 30th, 2008, mpsuzuki wrote:
Taking a glance on FreeType2 sources, it seems that the required
information is "which type (or no type) is sufficient to store
32bit an
Graham Asher wrote:
> I am getting very bad results autohinting Times New Roman (times.ttf
> from Microsoft): see the attached image.
I know this is highly subjective, but I will not qualify the image you sent
as "very bad."
Surely there are defects, but it seems readable to me.
In fact I remembe
That is totally irrelevant to the bug at hand (well, probably not completely
;-)), but I cannot resist such an offer... Sorry to ALL the people out there
which already know that stuff.
James Cloos wrote:
> and probably is most often called by way of the macro:
>
> ,(freetype2/include/freetype/
Graham Asher wrote:
> Casting from non-const to const is always legal, I believe, so I
> don't see how this can break compatibility.
It is a struct, not a function prototype.
So if your (= client) code manipulates such things, perhaps storing them,
committing the change may make the code now stor
[Resend since I did not see the original one. Sorry if it duplicates. ]
Hallo Werner,
On Thursday, December 8th, 2005 14:37Z, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> As far as I've seen, most system headers exist in one copy only, and
>> use preprocessor macros to detect which the architecture is; usually
>> v
On Tuesday, December 6th, 2005 17:02Z, Ilya Konstantinov wrote:
> Currently, freetype i386 and x86-64 collide in the following files:
> /usr/bin/freetype-config
> /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftconfig.h
>
> This makes installation of two freetype development kits impossible.
> Installing
On Friday, September 30, 2005 03:22Z George Williams wrote:
> On cygwin any external references (malloc, printf, etc.) are treated
> as undefined, and a special external declaration is required in the
> code. Similarly (under cygwin) any entry points/variables must be
> specially marked.
Seems lik
Sorry to answer this late.
On Friday, September 23, 2005 06:18Z Kiran Mahajan wrote:
> I want to know that, Is it possible to port freetype2 on 8
> bit platform like 8 Bit microcontrollers based on 8051 core
> or 8 Bit Rabbit processors?
In theory yes, but you should provide a fair amount of _st
Salut David,
On Friday, August 26th, 2005 10:19Z, David Turner wrote:
> or for Microsoft:
>
> "We completely gave up competing with Apple on the graphics
>design and print market. Also, we forgot what the PC revolution
>was all about."
It will also mean a huge rush on technical suppor
Salut David,
Tu peux dormir ? ;-)
On Thursday, August 25th, 2005 15:18Z Turner, David wrote:
>
> My opinion is that the DSIG table is the brain-child of DRM-obsessed
> managers at Microsoft Typography (or above), who don't understand much
> things regarding security.
They only understand that "s
On Thursday, August 25th, 2005 14:17Z George Williams wrote:
> First of all that seems a very weak form of protection.
I believe it is more social than technically effective.
> Secondly I don't really understand what damage a font can do to my
> system. The worst I can think of is
> a) crash the
[ Sorry Mirek if you received it twice. ]
On Thursday, June 23th, 2005 08:49 PM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I really wonder whether this font displays correctly on MS Windows, or
> whether my conclusions are wrong...
Just providing food for thought here.
I just tried to display the font from the ..
44 matches
Mail list logo
