Find in hash table, use correct value size #474
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1bsyl
force-pushed
the
br_fix_valuesize
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ee924ba to
77a9b5e
Compare
1bsyl
force-pushed
the
br_fix_valuesize
branch
from
77a9b5e to
22d2f64
Compare
|
Ah, thank you. FT_Get_Char_Index() uses a binary search, which is probably fine on Latin-1 fonts but slow on asian fonts. We should probably benchmark it more later, but we can leave as-is for now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey @slouken
This fix a crash in lastest version. *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated
because the key have has to be a ptr size.
Besides, I tested with/without a hash-table for glyph_indice, and there is not difference in speed. So probably freetype FT_Get_Char_Index is already optimized and we need no glyph_indice table.