"MacArthur, Ian (SELEX) (UK)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK. Can I ask why you include fl_font_x.cxx in fl_font_xft.cxx? They are > "parallel" implementations as I saw it, what do you gain by using both?
IIRC, misbuilt executables (that wound up linking against both Xft 1 and Xft 2) could encounter NULL return values from XftFontOpen, resulting in segfaults. As a workaround, I hacked fl_draw to detect that case and fall back on fl_draw_xlib (in conjunction with fl_font_xlib). > And is it something I should be doing? No, it's just an ugly workaround for a "don't do that, then!" case that's no longer likely to come up anyway. > No worries. Just don't hold your breath waiting for me...! I might be a > while. Understood; no rush. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
