<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Segmentation fault in _cairo_traps_compositor_glyphs"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103037#c26">Comment # 26</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Segmentation fault in _cairo_traps_compositor_glyphs"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103037">bug 103037</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:ajohnson@redneon.com" title="Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@redneon.com>"> <span class="fn">Adrian Johnson</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>I ran make test on image,xlib,pdf then used the output as the reference to test
the patch. I ran make -j8 test with the patch.
image and pdf are fine. xlib tests showed a few differences. In some cases the
output was an improvement. There are two xlib-render-rgb24 tests that looked
like a regression:
- device-offset-postive
- mask
When I ran just the device-offset-positive by itself it passed.
When I ran just the mask by itself I get different output every time it is run.
Uli, could you have a look. I know nothing about the xlib surfaces and don't
normally run xlib tests when working on pdf/ps.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>