[HarfBuzz] harfbuzz: Branch 'master'

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
autogen.sh |1 + docs/reference/Makefile.am |2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit b934b0f9d1b39fc7a06c812bea3d79ca5424e278 Author: Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org Date: Wed Mar 19 11:52:40 2014 -0700 Yet another try to make

[HarfBuzz] harfbuzz: Branch 'master'

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
src/hb-unicode.cc |9 +++-- src/hb-warning.cc | 11 --- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) New commits: commit 09732cc6695b8e41ba6cdcd4058a4f7cad90167a Author: Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org Date: Wed Mar 19 12:00:17 2014 -0700 Remove dead warning diff

[HarfBuzz] [Fixed] behdad/harfbuzz#247 (master - 09732cc)

2014-03-19 Thread Travis CI
Build Update for behdad/harfbuzz - Build: #247 Status: Fixed Duration: 2 minutes and 1 second Commit: 09732cc (master) Author: Behdad Esfahbod Message: Remove dead warning View the changeset:

[HarfBuzz] harfbuzz: Branch 'master'

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
util/hb-shape.cc |6 +++--- util/helper-cairo.cc | 21 - util/helper-cairo.hh |2 +- util/options.cc |6 +- util/options.hh |6 +++--- 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) New commits: commit

Re: [HarfBuzz] bug in hb_ot_layout_lookup_collect_glyphs?

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On 14-03-16 11:08 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Behdad, HarfBuzz doesn't validate glyph indices returned by `hb_ot_layout_lookup_collect_glyphs'. I think this qualifies as a bug. Hi Werner, Not really... It's perfectly legitimate to use non-existing glyph indices as interim number during

Re: [HarfBuzz] Don't render control characters?

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On 14-03-06 02:20 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:38:07 +0200 Konstantin Ritt ritt...@gmail.com wrote: Did you meet any single font with glyph for U+0008 (BS)? Honestly, I don't imagine what U+0008 glyph representation looks like :) Back one space! The underlining in

Re: [HarfBuzz] bug in hb_ot_layout_lookup_collect_glyphs?

2014-03-19 Thread Werner LEMBERG
Not really... It's perfectly legitimate to use non-existing glyph indices as interim number during GSUB... Just curious: Have you actually tested this behaviour with existing engines? When in doubt, do your own check. OK. In this case, it's probably a font bug. But I don't think we want

Re: [HarfBuzz] bug in hb_ot_layout_lookup_collect_glyphs?

2014-03-19 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On 14-03-19 04:19 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: However, your ttx version simply accepts `glyph65535' in the GSUB substitution. Do you *really* think this is OK? At least ttx should emit a warning that this glyph doesn't exist and is never input to another substitution. From data I've seen in