>> >> Indeed, size_t is the correct C89-compliant type. Would it hurt
>> >> to modify FT_Alloc_Func and FT_Realloc_Func?
>>
>> Looks good! Provided we can use it without breaking the ABI, please
>> proceed.
>
> The ABI checker report is attached. The change is noticed but
> permitted, I think.
Good, thanks.
> I was checking on LP64, where sizes of long and size_t match. They
> do not match on LLP64, which we are actually trying to fix.
Hmm. I can't evaluate the impact of the change. What about mingw and
friends, what about VisualStudio? Hin-Tak? Other opinions?
> Should proceed with the patch?
Yes, I think. If really necessary we could use a configuration option
to hide the change, using a macro `SIZE_T', for example.
> In addition I wonder if the entire ftdbgmem.c should be reworked
> with size_t instead of FT_Long.
Using `size_t' makes sense, yes.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
