[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c
From: |
Behdad Esfahbod |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:08:07 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 |
On 13-01-10 03:53 PM, David Turner wrote:
>
> It's been a long time, but I think it's really time we completely remove the
> old-internals hack and corresponding code. It was only needed transitively and
> all client code should have been modified to not require it.
>
> Also, sorry, but the Android build of FreeType uses the memory-optimized
> version, I don't see any reason to remove it :-)
Ok, fair enough. I'll go ahead and send patches to remove the old stuff then.
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
- [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, David Turner, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c,
Behdad Esfahbod <=
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12