Re: [ft-devel] New Infinality Release

[Infinality]

> Have you actually done binary searches in TTFs to find signatures? 
Well, only using the code here, not with a hex editor.  I have seen hits 
in some TTF files where I would not have expected them.  May speak to 
the issues you mentioned below.

> Given that the new ttfautohint bytecode signature is that short, as
> are some other snippets in Greg's whitepaper, I think it is best if
> you extend the code so that the function number is also checked to
> avoid false hits.

Yes, this makes sense for functions where we know the number, such as 
ttfautohint and 0.  But, I think the whitepaper states that on (at least 
some) functions, the number varies, which is why you need the detection 
code in the first place.  In practice, I haven't seen many (if any) of 
the disabled functions have an impact (probably due to the fact that 
they are making calls to things like SHPIX that are already "fixed" by 
my code.  So, we can probably disable some of the checks if necessary, 
however I know the ttfautohint check needs to be there.  I'll add one 
for the new ttfautohint too.

Regarding the problems with the opcode patterns, what did you see that 
was incorrect?  From scanning them (quickly) it seemed like it was 
mostly correct (perhaps missing the end IF, etc.)  I will take a look.  
Thanks for looking into that and cleaning it up.

Erik