[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FIXED: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.
From: |
Tom Kacvinsky |
Subject: |
FIXED: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing. |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:44:05 -0400 (EDT) |
Here is a patch for z1parse.c. Much like the patches for the CFF
stuff to fix unaligned accesses.
Tom
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Tom Kacvinsky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am having a problem with Multiple Masters in both ftmulti and
> ftview. Those program srun fine on a Solaris 7 box, but not on a DEC
> UNIX box. Which is perplexing to me. I'll try to sort it out later.
> I keep getting error messages like "invalid byte (0)" [or (15), or (2)
> , or (25)].
>
> Anyway, while doing a preliminary investigation, I noticed that the
> charstrings parsing is different in z1load/z1gload than it is in
> t1load/t1gload. Any particular reason? Is one going to be phased out
> in favor of the other?
>
> Tom
>
z1parse.diff
Description: Text document
- type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/01
- FIXED: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.,
Tom Kacvinsky <=
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., David Turner, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/07/02
- Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/02
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], David Turner, 2000/07/02
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Werner LEMBERG, 2000/07/03
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Angus Duggan, 2000/07/03
- CJK hinting [was: Autohinting concerns], Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/04