[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: openjdk-2d-dev
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFC: Fix for JDK-8188030
From: Philip Race <philip.race () oracle ! com>
Date: 2017-09-28 16:23:19
Message-ID: 59CD21F7.7030801 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
I think for JDK 8 you can pass down a flag to decide whether to include
or exclude CFF.
This flag would be the value of FontUtilities.isOpenJDK() and that
should tell us what we need.
That would preserve the status quo for Oracle JDK and it would be our
problem if the same
bug were then reported against that release.
-phil.
On 9/27/17, 5:35 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> I think I may be fine if we need to live with a local patch in our RPM
> in 8, this use case should be pretty rare, although I'll check first
> if there's some ifdefs that I can use for the backport to 8.
>
> I tried to figure out if I could just change the logic but all I could
> get was NPEs.
>
> Perhaps a more fine tuned search to exclude CFF in the first place,
> but I'm not sure how to craft the query for FontConfig in this case.
>
> I'll push to 10 for now and backport to 9 in the meantime. Do I need
> another reviewer ok?
>
> Cheers,
> Mario
>
> On Wed 27. Sep 2017 at 23:15, Phil Race <philip.race@oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> This is fine for JDK 9 + 10 but the reason CFF fonts are discarded
> is that we weren't supporting them properly in Oracle JDK until 9.
> We should have removed this check in 9 but it was forgotten.
>
> If you backport this to 7 and 8 it will be a problem there - for
> Oracle JDK, not OpenJDK.
>
> Although it won't matter for openjdk7 .. since Oracle isn't using that
> forest any more
>
> But it will be an issue for 8. Not sure how to handle that but
> it should not be backported without a resolution there.
>
> -phil.
>
> On 09/27/2017 06:52 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to propose a fix for
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188030.
> >
> > The issue is basically that CFF fonts are considered better
> match than
> > Type 1, but are discarded, leaving the font array with no elements.
> >
> > The fix is here:
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/8188030/webrev.01/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eneugens/8188030/webrev.01/>
> >
> > I attached a reproducer to the bug report, but you need a somewhat
> > minimal system setup for that to work.
> >
> > The fix is for OpenJDK 10 at this point, but I plan to backport
> it all
> > the way down to 7.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mario
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think for JDK 8 you can pass down a flag to decide whether to
include or exclude CFF.<br>
This flag would be the value of FontUtilities.isOpenJDK() and that
should tell us what we need.<br>
That would preserve the status quo for Oracle JDK and it would be
our problem if the same<br>
bug were then reported against that release.<br>
<br>
-phil.<br>
<br>
On 9/27/17, 5:35 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGUMyaQ2q_U+D8gVPm1DOTh9VVPzBy5XEzFjJhqVvHBpOs_knA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hi Phil,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I think I may be fine if we need to live with a
local patch in our RPM in 8, this use case should be pretty
rare, although I'll check first if there's some ifdefs that I
can use for the backport to 8.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I tried to figure out if I could just change the
logic but all I could get was NPEs.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Perhaps a more fine tuned search to exclude CFF
in the first place, but I'm not sure how to craft the query
for FontConfig in this case.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I'll push to 10 for now and backport to 9 in the
meantime. Do I need another reviewer ok?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Cheers,</div>
<div dir="auto">Mario</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Wed 27. Sep 2017 at 23:15, Phil Race <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:philip.race@oracle.com">philip.race@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is
fine for JDK 9 + 10 but the reason CFF fonts are discarded<br>
is that we weren't supporting them properly in Oracle JDK
until 9.<br>
We should have removed this check in 9 but it was forgotten.<br>
<br>
If you backport this to 7 and 8 it will be a problem there -
for<br>
Oracle JDK, not OpenJDK.<br>
<br>
Although it won't matter for openjdk7 .. since Oracle isn't
using that<br>
forest any more<br>
<br>
But it will be an issue for 8. Not sure how to handle that
but<br>
it should not be backported without a resolution there.<br>
<br>
-phil.<br>
<br>
On 09/27/2017 06:52 AM, Mario Torre wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> I would like to propose a fix for<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188030"
rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188030</a>.<br> ><br>
> The issue is basically that CFF fonts are considered
better match than<br>
> Type 1, but are discarded, leaving the font array with
no elements.<br>
><br>
> The fix is here:<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eneugens/8188030/webrev.01/"
rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/8188030/webrev.01/</a><br> \
><br> > I attached a reproducer to the bug report, but you need
a somewhat<br>
> minimal system setup for that to work.<br>
><br>
> The fix is for OpenJDK 10 at this point, but I plan to
backport it all<br>
> the way down to 7.<br>
><br>
> Any comments?<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Mario<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic