Fix attempt to subtract with overflow error in get_glyph_kern_advance
#5
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
That is a really unobvious bug. Good job hunting it down @mitchmindtree |
|
Ah, thanks for this, merging! Sorry for the delay in getting to this. |
|
I will push the changes to a new version on crates.io later today. |
|
Reminder? I don't see it on crates.io but would like to use this fix. |
|
@andrewcsmith Better late than never right? Done! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes dylanede/rusttype#30 and PistonDevelopers/conrod#874.
Here's the equivalent line in the original C header. I wasn't 100% sure of the behaviour here, the operation basically seems to be this:
After reading this SO post, it seems like b is converted to the result type
intbefore the subtraction operation takes place? This even seems to be the case when doingint = (unsigned int) - (unsigned int);.Anyways, I believe this PR changes the behaviour to more accurately represent the original C code behaviour and does seem to fix the bug when testing the aforementioned downstream issues.