On Freitag, 7. Januar 2022 18:10:27 CET you wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 09:00, Stefan Brüns stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de
wrote:
prev_type = figure->vertex_types[figure->vertex_count - 1];if (d2d_vertex_type_is_bezier(prev_type))prev =&figure->bezier_controls[figure->bezier_control_count - 1]; - else
prev = &figure->vertices[figure->vertex_count - 1];
next_prev = next = &figure->bezier_controls[bezier_idx++];/* type BEZIER implies i + 1 < figure->vertex_count */p1 = &figure->vertices[i + 1];Is that already true at this point in the series? It would be true after patch 6/8 in this series, but at this point in the series the end point could still have been removed in d2d_geometry_sink_EndFigure(), right?
The code is valid.
Either the last and first vertex is not cooincident, then the last segment is a line.
Or they are coincident, but he figure is OPEN. Then again the last segment is a line.
Or they are coincident, the figure is CLOSED, thus vertex_count is decremented. Then the last segment starts a `i == vertex_count - 1 == real_vertex_count - 2`. As `vertex[i + 1] == vertex[0]` holds, we can ignore the wraparound.
The comment is slightly off in this case - maybe `i + 1 < real_vertex_count`, but I am not sure this is really relevant, as this becomes fully correct with patch 6.
Kind regards,
Stefan