The FreeType Project - Bugs: bug #35847, follow up to bug 35833: Commit:...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #35847: follow up to bug 35833: Commit: 58cbc465d2 breaks the incremental interface
Submitter: | Chris Liddell <chrisl> | ||
Submitted: | Thu 15 Mar 2012 10:20:10 AM UTC | ||
Severity: | 3 - Normal | Item Group: | None |
Status: | Fixed | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | wl | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Planned Release: | 2.4.10 |
Sat 17 Mar 2012 06:43:58 AM UTC, comment #3: |
Werner LEMBERG <wl> |
Fri 16 Mar 2012 01:45:41 PM UTC, comment #2: Updated patch attached. Hopefully the comment is detailed enough - let me know if you want a more verbose explanation.
|
Chris Liddell <chrisl> |
Thu 15 Mar 2012 09:23:12 PM UTC, comment #1: Thanks for the patch. However, I ask you to add a comment why this test `inverted' (this is, using >= and || instead of < and &&). Otherwise, people like me are trying to `fix' this to have an orthogonal look :-)
|
Werner LEMBERG <wl> |
Thu 15 Mar 2012 10:20:10 AM UTC, original submission:
As a follow up to 35833, there is also an error in the loop exit condition in parse_subrs(), patch to follow...... |
Chris Liddell <chrisl> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 6 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012-03-17 | wl | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | wl | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
Planned Release | None | 2.4.10 | |||
2012-03-16 | chrisl | Attached File | - | Added 0001-Fix-Savannah-bug-35847-v2.patch, #25377 | |
2012-03-15 | chrisl | Attached File | - | Added 0001-Fix-Savannah-bug-35847.patch, #25367 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
Ah, I've misunderstood the logic. Thanks for the additional explanation; I've slightly changed the comment.