On 14/05/2019 17:41, Martin Balao wrote: > Hi Goetz, > > On 5/13/19 1:38 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: >> >> Can I somehow verify that it's the font that has the problem? >> Can I fix the font so that the test passes? >> > > I cannot say whether or not the static max advance value in each font is > right or not, but let's assume it is. The underlying problem here is > that OpenJDK uses a couple of internal FreeType library values to > calculate the effects of algorithmic bold and italic in the max advance > value -"algorithmic" means that the font is not italic or bold and is up > to the rendering engine to generate the desired effect-. These values > have changed over the years. What we did in 8218854 [1] was updating the > italic value to the latest version and supporting bold in the > calculation. Ideally, OpenJDK should not be tight to these values. > However, that's not easy to get rid of unless we change the API or the > API semantics. All this means that if you use OpenJDK 11 with an old > Free Type library, you may have different values and the test may fail. > > Note: this is just an hypothesis, I couldn't reproduce on my own. > > I believe the test assertion is right if we consider API semantics only > but we can put some constraints given reality. > > Kind regards, > Martin.- > > -- > [1] - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/0804f29e8be7 > >
I think the important thing here is to ensure that the test passes with the FreeType library included in the OpenJDK sources (--with-freetype=system). It's unrealistic to test with every possible version of FreeType one could compile against. -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 https://keybase.io/gnu_andrew
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
