Hi all,
As Turner had pointed out 1 month ago, today it is expensive
to keep the platform-specific files updated. I already ASCII-
fied MacOS MPW makefile, to be easily-modified by any text
editors. At present, when new module sources are introduced,
it's possible for any FreeType2 maintainers to
I tried that (on a 32 bit, x86 linux box) using ft from cvs as of a week
or so ago.
I couldn't trigger the bug using the versions of ZX and ZY included in
the rar.
I changed the printf() from %ld to %lx; hex helped show one issue:
When it does report a false value, it is always the case that:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:21:38 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, the implicit cast issue is not exceptional error in CW for
>> MacOS/ColdFire. Thus, I want to insert CW-specific pragma as
>> following. [...]
>
>It's ugly, but I can live with that since it's the only locati
> So, the implicit cast issue is not exceptional error in CW for
> MacOS/ColdFire. Thus, I want to insert CW-specific pragma as
> following. [...]
It's ugly, but I can live with that since it's the only location which
needs this special kind of attention.
Werner
_
Dear Antoine,
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:11:42 +0100
"Antoine Leca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, now I have 3 workarounds:
>
>Did you try
>
> jmp_buf volatile* dest = &( a_struct_ptr->jb_memb );
>
>If this works, you've got a 4th workaround: there is no difference for a
>conforming compiler betw
Dear Garrick,
Thank you for remembering your experience and posting it.
As you wrote, I'm questionable how many die-hard CW for
Mac users are writing new softwares. But I found that
same issue is found in the latest CW for embedded platform
that defines jmp_buf as an array of long pointers.
Unfor
> yes i believed it for that reason, but also... because i thought it
> clearly looked better when rendered at those sizes.
Your assumption is probably correct since TrueType instructions are
normally designed to work best if used with certain pixel sizes.
Werner
_
thanks for the info
yes i believed it for that reason, but also... because i thought it clearly
looked better when rendered at those sizes.
but as you are the second person to have told me that, i guess im wrong...
thanks!!!
james
Bevan, David wrote:
>
> James,
>
> I'm guess that you be
James,
I'm guess that you believe that Arial has sizes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 ...
because those are the sizes 'offered' in some (Microsoft?) application.
Arial can in fact be rendered at any point size. It is TrueType outline
font. (And MS apps actually allow you to choose any point size in
increme
