As noted by other posters, FT_Init_Library is a convenience function. You may want to use FT_New_Library instead to provide your own custom allocator.
2009/6/22 Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> > > >> > both FT_New_Memory, and FT_New_Library (functions called within > >> > FT_Init_FreeType) are allocating memory, before I have a chance > >> > of setting the function pointers in FT_Memory.. To get around > >> > that I added an extra argument to the FT_Init_FreeType, which > >> > allows me to provide an FT_Memory structure, before any other > >> > freetype code is running. > >> > >> The `canonical' way is to replace ftsystem.c with something more > >> appropriate for your target platform. For example, you can copy > >> the whole file, only replacing `FT_New_Memory' to fit your needs. > >> I don't see an immediate need to add new API functions -- you have > >> to convince me that the just outlined method doesn't work :-) > > > > Sure I could do that... but then what is the point of having the > > FT_Memory struct...it doesn't work as advertised, and in order to > > fix it you advise me to replace a file where I need to implement my > > own ft_alloc methods? > > Well, advise... What I do is rather like taking a stab in the dark > based on previous information :-) > > > The changes I made, make the FT_Memory struct work at all times, not > > just after initialization, even in a DLL build.... What you propose > > doesn't fix FT_Memory, but will fix my problem if I implement it in > > a way that adds a dependency on the system I have for allocating > > memory, which is an undesirable dependency, or if I just strip those > > methods from freetype, and implement them locally and have the > > linker sort it out.. (in which case a DLL build won't work anymore). > > both methods seem architectural wrong to me... but I guess I'm alone > > in that... > > I don't think so. Your arguments sound convincing -- let's see what > David says. > > > Anyway, again I really just wanted to 'notify' you of this, if you > > don't believe the changes make sense then don't take it, I'm > > perfectly fine integrating my changes over top every time I upgrade, > > which I hardly do anyway.... I just ran into this again when I took > > the 2.3.9 upgrade, and though I might as well be decent and > > contribute back... > > Thanks for that! Please always reply to the list too (even if you > aren't subscribed). > > > Werner > > > _______________________________________________ > Freetype-devel mailing list > Freetype-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel >
_______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
