Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-24 Thread Jan-Åke Larsson
Jan-Åke Larsson wrote: Update: Just tried compiling the library with SUN cc (Workshop 11). I no longer get a segfault when linking my program to ft 2.1.8. Scratch that. It works with gcc too. Today. Perhaps it is the phase of the Moon or something, I give up. /JÅ -- The box said Windows 95,

Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-17 Thread David Turner
Hello, please provide the font file's name, and where we could download it. by the way, which version of GCC are you using ? Regards, - David Turner - The FreeType Project (www.freetype.org) Jan-Åke Larsson a écrit : I get a segfault (or bus error, sometimes) from FT_Get_Name_Index on

Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-17 Thread David Turner
Hello, I've just tested it with FreeType CVS on a x86 Linux machine, and it seems to work well with the font you sent me. Running with valgrind doesn't show any bad memory access or other errors. I don't have a Solaris 9 machine here, and won't be able to due much here. Given the line were

RE: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-17 Thread Ian Brown
Sent: 17 May 2006 16:11 To: Jan-Åke Larsson Cc: freetype@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+ Hello, I've just tested it with FreeType CVS on a x86 Linux machine, and it seems to work well with the font you sent me. Running with valgrind doesn't show

Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-17 Thread Jan-Åke Larsson
David Turner wrote: I don't have a Solaris 9 machine here, and won't be able to due much here. Given the line were the segfault is detected, I suppose that the value of the 'service' variable is bogus (and not NULL). Yes, but might be overwritten somewhere else, no? I don't suppose that the

Re: [ft] Segfault in FT_Get_Name_Index, Solaris 9, FreeType 2.1.8+

2006-05-17 Thread Jan-Åke Larsson
Ian Brown wrote: On the SPARC architecture, you can only access 16 bit values on 16 bit address boundaries, 32 bit values on 32 bit address boundaries etc. Yep: But dereferencing a bogus pointer would sometimes cause a bus error, sometimes a segfault, I'd imagine. /JÅ -- ceci n'est pas une