Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
I don't know if this is how native does it, but it makes intuitive sense to me that if we have a glyph in the requested font, we should use it, and this fixes the bug in question. This should avoid the possibility of regression in cases where font linking isn't needed. There is a possibility of regression in corner cases handled better by the earlier version of font linking.
--
v3: gdiplus: Use font linking only for missing glyphs.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7054
Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
I don't know if this is how native does it, but it makes intuitive sense to me that if we have a glyph in the requested font, we should use it, and this fixes the bug in question. This should avoid the possibility of regression in cases where font linking isn't needed. There is a possibility of regression in corner cases handled better by the earlier version of font linking.
--
v2: gdiplus: Use font linking only for missing glyphs.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7054
Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
I don't know if this is how native does it, but it makes intuitive sense to me that if we have a glyph in the requested font, we should use it, and this fixes the bug in question. This should avoid the possibility of regression in cases where font linking isn't needed. There is a possibility of regression in corner cases handled better by the earlier version of font linking.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7054