Bug 215256 - cannot set pages on SPARCprinter (gdevsppr.c)
cannot set pages on SPARCprinter (gdevsppr.c)
Status: NOTIFIED FIXED
Product: Ghostscript
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Printer Driver
master
All All
: P1 normal
Assigned To: Raph Levien
Bug traffic
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2000-09-24 22:22 PDT by Jack Moffitt
Modified: 2007-12-13 12:55 PST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jack Moffitt 2000-09-24 22:22:56 PDT
Originally reported by: nobody@users.sourceforge.net
I found a misc bug on gs6.01/src/gdevsppr.c for Sun's SPARCprinter.
This bug seemed to appear in newer version (>6.00) of gs because gs5.10 did not have this bug.
Please collect line 129:

lpvipage.resolution = (pdev->x_pixels_per_inch == 300 ? DPI300 : DPI400);

to

lpvipage.resolution = (pdev->x_pixels_per_inch == 300 ? 300 : 400);

(or some more better solutions are also welcome)

Comment 1 Jack Moffitt 2000-09-24 22:24:52 PDT
Comment originally by nobody@users.sourceforge.net
Sorry missing my name:
INOUE Namihiko <62e006@kenken.go.jp>
from Japan.

(Also I'm very sorry for my poor english.)
Comment 2 Raph Levien 2000-11-05 12:10:29 PST
Comment originally by raph@users.sourceforge.net
This is fairly puzzling, as the http://www.stat.yale.edu/~emerson/lpviio.h file seems quite clearly to want DPI300 or DPI400 in the resolution field of the lpvi_page structure.

I think this may be a situation in which different versions of the SPARCprinter driver have different requirements. As you note, gs5.10 use 300 and 400 rather than the DPI300 and DPI400 constants. However, it's likely that this wasn't working for somebody, judging from this change note in History5.htm:

        - Setting the resolution on the SPARCprinter didn't work.
(gdevsppr.c)

Perhaps the best way to resolve this bug is to document the fact that different versions may require different invocations to set up the printer.
Comment 3 Raph Levien 2002-03-28 18:28:42 PST
Comment originally by raph@users.sourceforge.net
Logged In: YES 
user_id=379

It is unclear to me what the correct behavior should be.
Thus, I have documented this uncertainty. For more
discussion, please see:

http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-code-review/2002-March/002225.html

The commit message log is:

http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-cvs/2002-March/001520.html