I wonder whether this code from FT_Init_FreeType
(*alibrary)-version_major = FREETYPE_MAJOR;
(*alibrary)-version_minor = FREETYPE_MINOR;
(*alibrary)-version_patch = FREETYPE_PATCH;
should be moved to FT_New_Library to make FT_Library_Version more
generic.
I suppose that you don't
1) We have our own struct that contains both the ft library and an
FT_Memory object.
2) We initialize the fields in the FT_Memory object so that our
callbacks are called.
3) We call FT_New_Library and tell it to use our memory object.
This is the first FT2 API call.
//
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Mickey Gabelmic...@monfort.co.il wrote:
Tom van Dijck wrote:
We have had no problem using FT2 with our own allocators (we work on
systems were malloc() and free(), and possibly dynamic allocation
entirely, are not present)
So either I am
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
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
I agree - I also have had no problem using custom allocators with
FreeType 2. I have successfully used DlMalloc, and currently use a
hybrid system comprising a fast-access pool of small blocks and a
fallback to standard malloc and free.
Graham Asher
CartoType
Mickey Gabel wrote:
Werner
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
We have had no problem using FT2 with our own allocators (we work on
systems were malloc() and free(), and possibly dynamic allocation entirely,
are not present)
So either I am doing it wrong, or Tom van Dick is doing it wrong.
a totally unintentional spelling error ;) I like it
Tom van Dijck wrote:
We have had no problem using FT2 with our own allocators (we work on
systems were malloc() and free(), and possibly dynamic allocation
entirely, are not present)
So either I am doing it wrong, or Tom van Dick is doing it wrong.
a totally unintentional
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
