- 26 2月, 2015 32 次提交
-
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Shouldn't be needed. I have a hard time imagining this breaking any legitimate use case.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Needed some rework of Extension table. Hopefully I got it right, and the new template usage doesn't break any compilers...
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
No functional change right now.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
This makes a lot of code safer. We only try modifying the object in one place, after making sure it's safe to do so. So, do a const_cast<> in that one place...
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Can be further optimized, but I think I didn't break anything. Saves another 3% off Roboto shaping.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Towards reducing the cost of initializing skippy_iter()
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Has no functional effect since reject was never used with match_glyph_data.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Currently: - Initializing skippy is very expensive, - Our lookup accelerator (using set-digests) can be very ineffecite, As such, we end up many times initializing skippy but then failing coverage check. Reordering fixes that. When, later, we fix our accelerator to have truly small false-positive rate (for example by using the frozen-sets), then we might want to reorder these checks such that we wouldn't calculate coverage number if skippy is going to fail. This shows a 5% speedup with Roboto already.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
I experimented with replacing use of hb_set_digest_t with this new hb_frozen_set_t, hoping to get a huge speedup for busy lookups (like kern lookup in Roboto), but I only got 6% speendup in Roboto and 4% in NotoNastaliqUrduDraft :(.
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
Fix build with MSVC on CE
-
- 14 2月, 2015 1 次提交
-
-
由 Konstantin Ritt 提交于
This code is C++ only. There isn't a single C++ compiler that fails to understand the "inline" keyword, since it's required by C++98. Any compiler older than C++98 is likely to choke on the template usage further down, so this isn't necessary. Moreover, the C++ standard says you cannot define macros. [lib.macro.names] says "Nor shall such a translation unit define macros for names lexically identical to keywords." -- technically, it's a promise that the Standard Library headers won't do it, the wording means that the entire translation unit won't do it, which implies no source can do it. MSVC complains about it: fatal error C1189: #error : The C++ Standard Library forbids macroizing keywords. Enable warning C4005 to find the forbidden macro. Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
-
- 29 1月, 2015 3 次提交
-
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
As discovered on Chrome Mac: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=452326
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
As discovered on Chrome Mac: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=452326 This was originally broken in: commit 5a0eed3b Author: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org> Date: Mon Aug 11 23:47:16 2014 -0400 [coretext] Implement vertical shaping
-
- 28 1月, 2015 3 次提交
-
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
-
由 Konstantin Ritt 提交于
-
由 Konstantin Ritt 提交于
-
- 27 1月, 2015 1 次提交
-
-
由 Behdad Esfahbod 提交于
This is by no ways to promote non-Unicode encodings. This is an entry point that takes Unicode codepoints that happen to all be the first 256 characters and hence fit in 8bit strings. This is useful eg in Chrome where strings that can fit in 8bit are implemented that way, and this avoids copying into UTF-8 or UTF-16. Perhaps we should rename this to hb_buffer_add_codepoints8(). I'm also curious if anyone would be really interested in hb_buffer_add_codepoints16(). Please discuss!
-