Hold on to data used for FT_New_Memory_Face until after FT_Done_Face is called.#19
Merged
Merged
Conversation
ChrisLoer
force-pushed
the
cloer/hold_memory
branch
from
ba077e9 to
557d996
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
FreeType documentation for FT_New_Memory_face at https://freetype.org/freetype2/docs/reference/ft2-base_interface.html specifies "You must not deallocate the memory before calling FT_Done_Face", but it looks like we pass it a pointer to the contents of a vector that goes out of scope. This change just does a simple char* malloc and holds onto it until free_fontstack.
I came across this while debugging missing/corrupted glyphs showing up in a large set of SDFs. To my surprise, the missing glyphs showed up when I ran font-maker a second time with the same inputs, and then when I put some debugging code in to capture the set of glyphs, I found that the set of glyphs changed from one run to the next.
Looking at the code, I saw this, it looked suspicious, and when I changed it the set of glyphs started being reproducible between runs. I haven't done much else to verify the change (didn't actually observe memory corruption in the debugger or anything), but it seems pretty straightforward, at least if I'm reading the docs right.
@bdon