[ft-devel] C89 vs C99

Folks, I wonder whether it makes sense to start using C99 features in FreeType (or rather a subset of C99 that is compatible with C++). Are there still *important* compilers that are stuck with C89? Werner ___ Freetype-devel mailing list

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

> APIs would be kept to use C89-compatible types, but C99-only types > are used in internal part? Yes. No API changes. > Some people may want to see the types like int32_t, int16_t... For the API you mean? Certainly, but this would be FreeType 3... > And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

Dear Werner, APIs would be kept to use C89-compatible types, but C99-only types are used in internal part? Some people may want to see the types like int32_t, int16_t... And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in builds lack C99-savvy compilers. They should be dropped? Regards, mpsuzuki Werner

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

>> And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in builds lack C99-savvy >> compilers. They should be dropped? > > Probably yes. C99 is 15 years old... Umm. Yet I've not checked how many platforms in builds directory could move to C99 sources, so at present it's difficult for me to comment. Maybe I

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >I think we could then add > `-std=c99' to the gcc compiler options (while retaining `-ansi' and > `-pedantic'). -ansi is the same as -std=c90. So -std=c99 would replace -ansi. ___

[ft-devel] Font that freetype doesn't want to open

Hi, in poppler we have a bug about a pdf that includes this font that freetype (also fontforge if it matters) complains. Is it broken beyond recovery or could freetype be patched up to read it? The file also includes the Bold variant that freetype loads correctly, i can attach it if it helps.

Re: [ft-devel] Font that freetype doesn't want to open

> Hi, in poppler we have a bug about a pdf that includes this font > that freetype (also fontforge if it matters) complains. > > Is it broken beyond recovery or could freetype be patched up to read > it? Well, the font has no `hmtx' table, which is essential for a TrueType font. It misses a

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

>>I think we could then add `-std=c99' to the gcc compiler options >> (while retaining `-ansi' and `-pedantic'). > > -ansi is the same as -std=c90. So -std=c99 would replace -ansi. Ah, ok. I haven't looked it up closely. Werner ___

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

>> And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in builds lack C99-savvy >> compilers. They should be dropped? > > ... the presence of a `long long' This is the only feature we really need to support in this day and age unless specifically rejected by the user in ftoption.h, not the other way around.

Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

> Maybe I should consider the possibility to extend FreeType building > system to support C99-to-C89 convertor. Perhaps a misunderstanding: I don't intend to suddenly use arbitrary C99 stuff. Such a converter is certainly not needed. > Could you tell more about the advantages of C99 for