Re: [ft] Why is FT_F26Dot6 defined as a signed long

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Yes, In my update-types.patch experiment I used stdint.h and
>> changed the typedef's of FT_{U}Int{16, 32, 64) to use {u}int{16,
>> 32, 64}. But doing that caused some warnings, which after "fixing"
>> the resulting library failed with a memory corruption fault loading
>> a font.
>>
>> So unless the maintainers think it would be worth putting more
>> effort in this direction, I'll just leave it as a starting point
>> for some future date.
> 
> It does sound very interesting indeed!  @Werner: has something like
> that been tried already at some point and where/why would it fail?

I haven't tried this yet, but I would be glad if doing such tests
would lead to more FreeType fixes :-)

It's probably time to slowly move to C99...  On the other hand: There
are probably more important things to solve.


    Werner