[ft-devel] Re: Some public APIs using FT_Int/FT_UInt should be improved in future

[mpsuzuki]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:27:22 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> A) Some 32bit (or more, in future extension?) flags are
>>    interchanged by FT_UInt.
>>
>>    Example: FT_Get_Advance(), FT_Get_Advance() receive flags by
>>    FT_UInt type, but FT_ADVANCE_FLAG_FAST_ONLY (=0x20000000UL) etc
>>    cannot be passed by FT_UInt on 16bit system.
>>
>>    Although the extension from FT_UInt to portable 32bit integer
>>    makes 16bit systems troubled, I think it should be extended.  To
>>    keep ILP32/LP64 systems unchanged, using FT_UInt32 would be most
>>    appropriate.
>
>Please use FT_Long for FT_Get_Advance and FT_Get_Advances since they
>are new in version 2.3.8, so no compatibility problems can occur.

I'm sorry, you told to use FT_Long, but I committed FT_UInt32.

   104    FT_EXPORT_DEF( FT_Error )
   105    FT_Get_Advances( FT_Face    face,
   106                     FT_UInt    start,
   107                     FT_UInt    count,
   108                     FT_UInt32  flags,
   109                     FT_Fixed  *padvances )
   110    {

        ...

   143      flags |= FT_LOAD_ADVANCE_ONLY;
   144      for ( nn = 0; nn < count; nn++ )
   145      {
   146        error = FT_Load_Glyph( face, start + nn, flags );

        ...

As you can see, FT_Get_Advances() passes its 4th argument flags
to FT_Load_Glyph() whose 3rd argument is declared as FT_UInt32
in public interface. To match their types, I declared the flag
as FT_UInt32.

BTW, if there's any criterion to determine "FT_ULong" is better
in public API (or "FT_UInt32" is better), please let me know.

Regards,
mpsuzuki