Re: double patch [was Re: libgsf: very preliminary patch]

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 19:56 +0000, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> J.M. Maurer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 19:15 +0000, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> >
> >>J.M. Maurer wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm willing to update the double-branch if I'm allowed to merge it into
> >>>HEAD after that....
> >>
> >>No objections from me, but we will almost certainly need to continue
> >>maintaining an int branch after that -- there is no FP on the 770, and
> >>the soft FP is not great performance wise.
> >
> >
> > Trust me, that won't be possible.. the patch touches almost every line
> > in af/gr/* and text/* ... it would be a 100% fork, where every single
> > patch has to be rewritten for the int branch.
>
> I don't think we can get around this, the FP is not viable for the many
> of the embedded platforms, and I would like us to keep a foothold there.
> At the same time we want to take advantage of the FP apis that are
> becoming available on the desktop like cairo.
>
> I think we could reduce the impact of the change if we typedef UT_Unit
> as double / int and have some comparison macros, like UT_Unit_eq(),
> UT_Unit_gt(), _lt () _ge(), _le().

Sure, but I've fairly sure that no-one wants to redo 100000+ lines of
code again (which took me about 2 complete months when I had all time of
the world being a student)

I think the branch is dead then, and we will have to live with the fact
that we can't do kerning, or even draw a line from 0,0 to 9,0 and expect
10 pixels to be drawn.

Marc
Received on Wed Feb 22 01:18:08 2006