RE: [Freetype] Lonely Longs

[Darren J Longhorn]

> > 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.

Wow, my first tiny contribution to an open source project!
 
> > 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 :-)

Good plan!