Re: Clean up and fix glyph contour generation nits. (issue 566080043 by address@hidden)

[hanwenn]

On 2020/05/10 10:00:54, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/05/10 09:29:48, hanwenn wrote:
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
> > File lily/freetype.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
> > lily/freetype.cc:143: };
> > On 2020/05/10 09:16:58, hahnjo wrote:
> > > Not sure if FT developers plan to change this interface at some
point. In
> > other
> > > projects, I have seen something akin to
> > > FT_Outline_Funcs funcs;
> > > memset(&funcs, 0, sizeof(funcs));
> > > for external structs from dependencies to make sure no field goes
> > uninitialized.
> > 
> > the C99 standard actually says that omitted fields are
zero-initialized
> > 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Designated-Inits.html
> > 
> > I added the field because GCC warns about it (I don't understand
why)
> 
> It could be that this is because of C++ officially inheriting from C89
IIRC?
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/aggregate_initialization
says:
> "If the number of initializer clauses is less than the number of
members [...]
> the remaining members [...] are [...] copy-initialized from empty
lists, in
> accordance with the usual list-initialization rules (which performs
> value-initialization for non-class types [...])"
> which I would read as "uninitialized".
> 
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode149
> > lily/freetype.cc:149: return ((Path_interpreter *) user)->moveto
(*to);
> > On 2020/05/10 09:16:59, hahnjo wrote:
> > > Do you want to create copies of the arguments? (here and for the
other
> > > functions)
> > 
> > yes. I find it easier to reason about and read. It's all inlined
anyway.
> 
> const refs should work the same AFAICS

Yes, I know. Do you want me to change this?

https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/