> Our automated testing infrastructure flagged an issue with FreeType
> code where at low font size, certain glyph was scaled incorrectly.
What font exactly, and which glyphs of it? If this is a proprietary
font, please send the font to us privately for further inspection, not
to the list. If it is a large one, please send a link.
> The root cause was found to be delay in setting the
> backward_compatibility flag on the execution context. This issue is
> sensitive to the order of invocation of FT_Load_Glyph on a set of
> glyph IDs. If the glyph that depends on the proper value for
> backward_compatibility is not the first one to be loaded, this issue
> does not happen because the first glyph load would have set the
> field value correctly.
As Alexei said, this is problematic – at least this is what I get from
your description. A glyph must not rely on the graphics state; as
soon as a new glyph gets loaded, this state is reset. If backward
compatibility is requested, it must be activated per-glyph or in the
the CV program.
> The reexecute flag is not currently affected by
> exec->backward_compatibility flag which, as you can see, can clearly
> affect the output.
'Can see'? What? You haven't shown us an image of the font output at
all. Did you miss to attach something?
Werner
