Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs/src ChangeLog

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs/src ChangeLog

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 14:02, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:

> +2008-12-11  Jason Rumney  <jasonr@gnu.org>
> +
> +       * w32uniscribe.c (uniscribe_encode_char): Increase glyph buffer
> +       size for surrogates.
> +

Are you aware that you just fixed #872/#1179/etc.?

Thanks!

    Juanma

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs/src ChangeLog

[Jason Rumney]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 14:02, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> +2008-12-11  Jason Rumney  <jasonr@gnu.org>
>> +
>> +       * w32uniscribe.c (uniscribe_encode_char): Increase glyph buffer
>> +       size for surrogates.
>> +
>>     
>
> Are you aware that you just fixed #872/#1179/etc.?
>   

No, the bug I was fixing was a different one, but since it seems to be 
an underlying bug in the OS, I'm not surprised that it caused problems 
elsewhere.

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs/src ChangeLog

[Chong Yidong]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@f2s.com> writes:

> Juanma Barranquero wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 14:02, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> +2008-12-11  Jason Rumney  <jasonr@gnu.org>
>>> +
>>> +       * w32uniscribe.c (uniscribe_encode_char): Increase glyph buffer
>>> +       size for surrogates.
>>> +
>>>     
>>
>> Are you aware that you just fixed #872/#1179/etc.?
>
> No, the bug I was fixing was a different one, but since it seems to be
> an underlying bug in the OS, I'm not surprised that it caused problems
> elsewhere.

I'm not sure what your statement means.  Does it mean 872/1179 etc are
effectively fixed even though it was not your intention, or that they
still need separate fixes?

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs/src ChangeLog

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 16:12, Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what your statement means.  Does it mean 872/1179 etc are
> effectively fixed even though it was not your intention, or that they
> still need separate fixes?

They don't need separate fixes, as they are, as of now, unreproducible
(at least, the five or six ways I know of reproducing #872 don't work
anymore).

It is likely Jason has really fixed the problem, because it started
happening a few days after this change:

2008-07-30  Jason Rumney  <jasonr@gnu.org>

        * w32font.h (struct w32font_info): Use unicode version of textmetrics.

        * w32font.c (w32font_encode_char): Leave as unicode if in range.
        (w32font_open_internal): Get unicode version of textmetrics.
        Don't enable or disable glyph indices here.
        (w32font_open): Disable use of glyph indices.

        * w32uniscribe.c (uniscribe_open): Enable use of glyph indices.

  Juanma