Re: [Freetype] Lonely Longs

[Werner LEMBERG]

> What I did, more recently than two years ago, on the DM642 was to
> avoid the use of the five byte longs by doing this: [...]

Thanks, I've added this to the CVS.

> A quick look through the code revealed that there was some use of
> "naked long" i.e. without using the freetype type definition.  This
> at least has the _potential_ to cause problems, but didn't seem to
> interfere with the operation, at least as far as I got.  My
> suggested solution for this would be to replace usage of "long" &
> "unsigned long" with "FT_LONG" & "FT_ULONG".

Well, I won't do anything right now, waiting for bug reports :-)


    Werner