Re: [ft] FT_Outline_Render makes different bitmaps in 32-bit and 64-bit programs?

[suzuki toshiya]

Hi,

It seems that this bug appears since a change between 2.3.9 and 2.3.10:
The change does not seem to have different effect between 32-bit and
64-bit systems, so I'm afraid there is unknown bug related with overflow
or anything like that, and 64-bit system doesn't fall in it occasionally.
I will try to fix, although I cannot start quickly (due to forthcoming
JTC1/SC2/WG2 IRG meeting in Macao). Thank you for finding this issue.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

commit 0409ef32686188c1947298e0fca9fbeadd23c1c3
Author: Werner Lemberg <address@hidden>
Date:   Thu Jun 11 17:32:31 2009 +0200

   Increase precision for B/W rasterizer.

   * src/raster/ftraster.c (Set_High_Precision): Add two more bits to
   the precision.  This corrects rendering of some small glyphs, for
   example, glyph `xi' in verdana.ttf at 13 ppem.  Testing with ftbench
   on my GNU/Linux box I don't see a performance degradation.

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 36b6210..6edf105 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2009-06-11  Werner Lemberg  <address@hidden>
+
+       Increase precision for B/W rasterizer.
+
+       * src/raster/ftraster.c (Set_High_Precision): Add two more bits to
+       the precision.  This corrects rendering of some small glyphs, for
+       example, glyph `xi' in verdana.ttf at 13 ppem.  Testing with ftbench
+       on my GNU/Linux box I don't see a performance degradation.
+
2009-06-08  Michael Zucchi  <address@hidden>

       Handle FT_STROKER_LINECAP_BUTT.
diff --git a/src/raster/ftraster.c b/src/raster/ftraster.c
index 12a8dff..5ade13b 100644
--- a/src/raster/ftraster.c
+++ b/src/raster/ftraster.c
@@ -588,9 +588,9 @@
  {
    if ( High )
    {
-      ras.precision_bits   = 10;
-      ras.precision_step   = 128;
-      ras.precision_jitter = 24;
+      ras.precision_bits   = 12;
+      ras.precision_step   = 256;
+      ras.precision_jitter = 50;
    }
    else
    {


Tom Bishop, Wenlin Institute wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:05 PM, suzuki toshiya wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since 2.3.8? I'm really interested in, because I had committed
> > many changes for 16-bit/64-bit platforms between 2.3.9 and 2.3.10.
> > In your observation, 2.3.8 is ok but 2.3.9 is not ok?
> > Or, 2.3.7 is ok but 2.3.8 is not ok?
>
> This problem didn't occur with 2.3.8, but it does occur with 2.4.2. 
> Unfortunately, I haven't tried any versions in between.
>
> Yours,
>
> Tom
>
> 文林 Wenlin Institute, Inc.        Software for Learning Chinese
> E-mail: address@hidden     Web: http://www.wenlin.com
> Telephone: 1-877-4-WENLIN (1-877-493-6546)
> ☯
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freetype mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype