On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Ervin D. Walter wrote: > I have had a problem using ghostscript verisons 3.53 up through 4.00 > in the standard distributions. Specifically, when I try to use gs > with *any* device be it the console, X, or a printer, I get errors > like the following with the standard distribs and compiled versions: > > Error: /limitcheck in --moveto-- > Operand stack: > 1 0 0 0 > Execution stack: > %interp_exit () --nostringval-- --nostringval-- > --nostringval-- false --nostringval-- --nostringval-- > --nostringval-- --nostringval-- > Dictionary stack: > --dict:645/653-- --dict:0/20-- --dict:42/200-- > --dict:117/250-- > Current allocation mode is local > Current file position is 311980 > > Now, the wierd parts. First, these errors don't occur every time, and > they don't occur in the same place every time. Second, the exact save > .ps file sent through gs 2.whatever or gs >= 3.53 *compiled with > optimizations turned off* works perfectly. This evidence leads me to > believe that there is nothing wrong with my postscript source (not > that I wrote it by hand. I came straight from dvips.). I have solved > the problem personally by downloading gs 4.00 and compiling it with no > gcc optimizations. However, I have to install it in /usr/local/ > because I didn't have a functioning debianized version. This means I > either have to keep a broken gs 3.x or working gs 2.x installed in
TeXtpert I'm not, but; [ This is only a guess ] Turning off the optimizations and getting _any_ kind of different end results, except for a speed or size difference should probably be considered a bug in gcc. That having been said, you do know there are two different "gs" interpreters? gs is an Alladin product, donated to GNU (accord. to the Printing HOWTO). As such, the GNU version is just an older Alladin version, presumably the newer Alladin version has more features, and different bugs. So if you have source from one and a binary from the other, you may be hunting bugs that are no longer with us... > P.S. I did try the recommended bug-search algorithm with gs 4.0 to no > avail. ? ... you mean trying to find the "bad patch?" by walking thru the versions? > Thanks, > Ervin Walter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > ,,, > (o o) > -----------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo----------------------------- > Different all twisty a of in - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > maze are you, passages little. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PGP Key fingerprint = A5 AB 25 7D 7A FD 4D FE BE 21 47 60 0C DC 67 9E > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/GNU__1.1___Linux__2.0.12___ Programming is always harder than doing the same task manually. It's hard because you must completely understand the problem, take everything into consideration, and protect against every possible flaw. Then you never have to do it manually again. The great driving force behind programming is the fervent devotion to laziness: you wage a war to save typing later.
