We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
These attachments are available in the static archive:
Reported in version: unspecified Reported for operating system, platform: Linux, x86_64
On 2014-03-29 13:42:33 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
Hi, With latest version, on Linux. (but whatever OS would do the same). I try to render the string "Jap" in size 50, and what appears to be rendered is "Jap." The "." is in fact the begining of the "J" The first glyph has a value "minx" of -14 And so, should be "compensated for the wrap around with negative minx". ... basically : in the function TTF_RenderUTF8_Shaded: line 1586: we have the initialisation to false : first = SDL_FALSE and it should be first = SDL_TRUE Thanks, Sylvain
Hi,
With latest version, on Linux. (but whatever OS would do the same).
I try to render the string "Jap" in size 50, and what appears to be rendered is "Jap." The "." is in fact the begining of the "J"
The first glyph has a value "minx" of -14 And so, should be "compensated for the wrap around with negative minx".
... basically :
in the function TTF_RenderUTF8_Shaded: line 1586: we have the initialisation to false :
first = SDL_FALSE
and it should be
first = SDL_TRUE
Thanks,
Sylvain
On 2014-04-17 06:53:12 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
Created attachment 1622 test case test case
Created attachment 1622 test case
test case
On 2014-04-17 06:55:45 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
Created attachment 1623 ttf font And also the font for the testcase. All fonts do not make the bug appear. This one does.
Created attachment 1623 ttf font
And also the font for the testcase. All fonts do not make the bug appear. This one does.
On 2014-04-17 06:59:28 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
I was thinking of this patch : diff -r 1854597a90fd SDL_ttf.c --- a/SDL_ttf.c Sun Feb 02 02:32:02 2014 -0800 +++ b/SDL_ttf.c Thu Apr 17 08:55:46 2014 +0200 @@ -1583,7 +1583,7 @@ /* Load and render each character */ textlen = SDL_strlen(text); first = SDL_FALSE; first = SDL_TRUE; xstart = 0; while ( textlen > 0 ) { Uint16 c = UTF8_getch(&text, &textlen); But this is not perfect. The "." does not appear, but the "J" is not fully rendered.
I was thinking of this patch :
diff -r 1854597a90fd SDL_ttf.c --- a/SDL_ttf.c Sun Feb 02 02:32:02 2014 -0800 +++ b/SDL_ttf.c Thu Apr 17 08:55:46 2014 +0200 @@ -1583,7 +1583,7 @@
/* Load and render each character */ textlen = SDL_strlen(text);
But this is not perfect. The "." does not appear, but the "J" is not fully rendered.
On 2014-04-17 07:00:28 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
Created attachment 1624 ttf font with no problem This TTF font has no problem !
Created attachment 1624 ttf font with no problem
This TTF font has no problem !
On 2014-04-22 11:21:40 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
Sorry, the two fonts are different. So the "J" is rendered as exepected when the patch is applied. Please double-check the patch and apply it. Thanks
Sorry, the two fonts are different. So the "J" is rendered as exepected when the patch is applied.
Please double-check the patch and apply it. Thanks
On 2014-06-28 18:43:15 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
Fixed, thanks! https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_ttf/rev/86d0c63699f4
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
These attachments are available in the static archive:
Reported in version: unspecified
Reported for operating system, platform: Linux, x86_64
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2014-03-29 13:42:33 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-04-17 06:53:12 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-04-17 06:55:45 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-04-17 06:59:28 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-04-17 07:00:28 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-04-22 11:21:40 +0000, Sylvain wrote:
On 2014-06-28 18:43:15 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: