This file: http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~chunnan/DOWNLOADS/jis2.ps.gz on some of the pages gives me: AFPL Ghostscript BETA RELEASE 8.10: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 Error: /rangecheck in --get-- Operand stack: --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- descender 0 --nostringval-- 1 Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1096/1123(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:70/200(L)-- --dict:139/250(L)-- --dict:18/200(L)-- --dict:41/52(L)-- --dict:1/17(L)-- --dict:6/17(L)-- --dict:5/17(L)-- --dict:1/3(L)-- --dict:15/19(ro)(L)-- Current allocation mode is local AFPL Ghostscript BETA RELEASE 8.10: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
I cannot reproduce this problem in any recent version of Ghostscript on Linux or Windows. Your remark about "some of the pages" suggests that you are doing some kind of DSC processing. Please provide more information about your execution environment. doc/bug-form.htm lists all topics that can help to reproduce the problem on the developer's side.
Confirmed with CVS HEAD.
I've finally reproduced the problem. It happens only when v. 8.11 of the fonts is installed. New fonts use literal arrays for the FontBBox but some ps programs assume that the array is executable. The sample PS program is incorrect. It cannot be fixed using idion recignition because the offending procedure is not bound. The file can be patched using any text editor, for instance sed "s|\[FontBBox\]|/FontBBox load |" <jis2.ps >jis2-fixed.ps We should consider using executable arrays in fonts because some (incorrect) programs depend on this.
*** Bug 687153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 687183 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 668337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Proposed fixes for the new font release are collected now under the bug 687297. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 687297 ***
*** Bug 687772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 688381 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
While I believe I understand the issues now (bug 688381 comment 3), nonetheless, the ps file concerned is not under my control, and (i haven't tried actually sending it to a ps printer yet), downgrade to 6.0 has other issues - missing glyphs, mayboe, under some circumstances? - it is probably more appropriate to to push for a new font release? (I managed to did what I wanted [pdf] with win32 gs 8.53 under wine/linux instead of linux native, and I read that it worked because win32 gs has reverted to older 6.0 font set - shouldn't the 8.11 be withdrawn or at least have a warning be up near it, before a new font release can be released?)
*** Bug 688514 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 688600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 689110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***