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/
