Currently we use integers and do lots of calculations and recalculations resulting in rounding errors which mess up with text spacing specially at low resolution screens.
We should switch to using floats to store glyph positions instead, which would make the rounding errors less visible. It would also allow us to benefit from sub-pixel positioning support in the graphics libraries we use.
*** Bug 105936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
My Bug 105936 report was moved here. Probably the right place. But here I read "earliest affected version 18.104.22.168 release".
Not true on MacOSX: All LO versions up to 5.2.5 have no problems with glyphs positioning, all work excellent.
This problem begun only with LO 5.3, and there it is on MacOSX massively. I had to downgrade to LO 5.2.5. It's not possible to work with this broken font display.
(On Linux and Windows this might be different.)
The problem is HarfBuzz, which was only introduced in LO 5.3. I hope this gets fixed soon.
The underlying issue is as old as this code base, it started showing up on Mac because we no longer use Core Text (which uses floats for glyph positions) and share the same code on all platforms.
I assume the "float" problem lies in the Firefox code, since HarfBuzz is used in Firefox and Chrome also, which have no problems with glyph display. Will this "float" bug be fixed anywhere soon?
*** Bug 106495 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry, my commentary from February had an error. It should read:
"I assume the "float" problem lies in the LibreOffice code and not in HarfBuzz, since HarfBuzz is used in Firefox and Chrome also, which have no problems with accurate glyph display. Will this "float" bug of LibreOffice be fixed anywhere soon?"
No one is currently working on this, feel free to work on it yourself or recruit someone to work on it.
Caolan may have fixed this here.
tdf#107249 round ascent/descent/extleading on conversion to int
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #8)
> Caolan may have fixed this here.
> tdf#107249 round ascent/descent/extleading on conversion to int
That is a different issue.
*** Bug 113665 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Do we have a (compact) API subset that needs to be changed from int to double to start the change?
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #11)
> Do we have a (compact) API subset that needs to be changed from int to
> double to start the change?
I’d start with the “Text functions” section in include/vcl/outdev.hxx and go down and up from there.
We will need to switch from tools::Point, tools::Rectangle etc. to basegfx::B2DPoint, basegfx::B2DRectangle, not just int to float/double. May be using basegfx::B2IPoint first since they are still int-based, so the first round would focus on the difference in semantics and API between tools and basegfx, then next round would tackle the actual floating pint conversion.
For me it presents as a HiDPI bug, in that it's when desktop scaling is at 200%, 300%, text (any font) can be quite a reasonable editing size on screen but show this poor positioning of glyphs within each word, making it headache-inducing to look at, and actually a serious impediment to wanting to use the software. Of course it was there before, HiDPI just amplifies it, making it a problem at larger font sizes as displayed on screen.
As the worst problem is just the positioning of glyphs within words I looked for the code that does that. It seems to be mostly in vcl/source/gdi/CommonSalLayout.cxx, where the actual work is delegated to Harfbuzz, which appears to work in integers, but I think at a very high resolution (whatever a upem is). The values that then come out of that then have a scale applied at double, rounded, and I suspect subject to more scaling later, in particular with respect to the desktop scaling factor in HiDPI modes. And that's probably where it's going wrong.
I had a play with trying to fix things locally in here and in vcl/source/gdi/sallayout.cxx, changing all the glyph positioning code to use doubles (and B2DPoint etc), including changing GlyphItem (sallayout.hxx) to use those types for its positions, widths and offsets and rounding as necessary at the edges of that, but I did rather get lost in the weeds, specifically, where to find the edges of it, to minimise the disruption to the rest of the codebase.
I suspect a fix can't really be confined like that, and it's probably undesirable anyway. It looks like we'd probably want to make DeviceCoordinate a double (as controlled in config_host/config_vcl.h.in showing this has been at least partially prepared-for) and follow *everywhere* that leads, one such place being the text functions in outdev.hxx of course.
Then final rounding to integers for actual pixels on screen would probably want to happen in platform specific code. As absolutely late as possible, at the moment of output, anyway. Then if and when there's a platform that takes double coordinates that rounding simply doesn't have to happen there.
Regarding the suggestion of going via B2IPoint and friends as an intermediate step towards B2DPoint and friends, I note that the B2I types are carefully defined to use 32-bit ints (sal_Int32), whereas Point, Rectangle et al use long (which let's face it *is* 64-bit almost everywhere that matters now) as does much existing position-calculating code. So I'd worry that we'd be setting ourselves up for a fight to resolve issues relating to that loss of range when it's only needed as an intermediate step.
... All of which would be an absolutely gigantic changeset, no wonder no-one who knows the code wants to do it! The more I poked around in this the more I thought, "Oh God, no..." and "Can we *really* not localise this fix in sallayout?" :-) But no, ultimately changing *all* the device coordinate code to double is probably what has to happen one day.
Another thought I had, noticing that in OpenOffice.org Writer on a 4K screen of course has no HiDPI awareness to speak of, so its user interface is unusable, but zoom in on the text to an editing size and it looks fine - at 240% zoom you would expect that, of course. Pretty much the same applies in LibreOffice Writer if you set your desktop scaling to 100% on a 4K screen. So I wondered, what if instead you just *not* apply desktop scaling on the document view panes/frames whatever they're called here, and, um, *lie* on the user interface, ie: multiply the user selected zoom by the desktop scaling factor? :-)
Another alternative to floating point, is to keep using integers but use a scale, so instead of shaping at 10 pixels and drawing at the coordinates we get, we shape at 10 * SCALE and shape ant coordinates / SCALE. Which is what many other libraries do, and I vaguely remember that we have something similar by may be we are not using it thoroughly. Worth investigating.