Indeed, working more on this issue I realized, that using
FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY together with FT_LOAD_TARGET_LCD causes
FT_Get_Advance to fail always. Removing FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY,
makes it work but very slow.
On the other hand, using FT_LOAD_NO_HINTING makes it to work really
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
Indeed, working more on this issue I realized, that using
FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY together with FT_LOAD_TARGET_LCD causes
FT_Get_Advance to fail always. Removing FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY,
makes it work but
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:05:44 +0200, John Found wrote:
About the C snippets - unfortunately, I can only read C and only if
it is not so complex. This way I simply can't provide C code snippets
at all.
The computing world does not revolve around x86. Open-source software
regularly also runs on
Uh, oh, please provide a C snippet, and tell us which font you are
using. I apologize for not being able to work with ASM.
The cited benchmarks was made using DejaVu Sans with 16px height
(19px line spacing)
OK. This information already excludes a potential issue with CFF
files, cf.
According to the FreeType documentation, the fastest way to compute
the width of some text string is to use FT_Get_Advance function that
returns the advance values without loading and rendering the glyphs.
See documentation of FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY for reasons why this
can take a long
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:45:57 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
According to the FreeType documentation, the fastest way to compute
the width of some text string is to use FT_Get_Advance function that
returns the advance values without loading and rendering the glyphs.
See
Hey
I would like to know the status of the fixes for the CVE reported here :
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/7835/Freetype-Freetype.html?vendor_id=4535
thank you
Vincent Torri
___
Freetype mailing list
Freetype@nongnu.org
I don't know the detail of this website (e.g.
how to use it), but it seems that some CVE
reports have the links to the existing fixes
in GIT repository. I'm not sure whether this
website wants to acknowledge how many bugs
were found once (and don't care whether they
are fixed or not in the latest
