Bug 688464 - Ghostscript displays PDF but gives out error messages...Acroread displays without problems
Summary: Ghostscript displays PDF but gives out error messages...Acroread displays wit...
Status: NOTIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ghostscript
Classification: Unclassified
Component: PDF Interpreter (show other bugs)
Version: 8.53
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P4 normal
Assignee: leonardo
URL:
Keywords:
: 689314 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-12-21 08:45 UTC by Christian Faulhammer
Modified: 2008-12-19 08:31 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments
Testfile with embedded Optima clone and producing errors (9.40 KB, application/pdf)
2005-12-21 08:46 UTC, Christian Faulhammer
Details
patch (2.70 KB, patch)
2005-12-24 15:19 UTC, Alex Cherepanov
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Christian Faulhammer 2005-12-21 08:45:59 UTC
I use preview-latex with Emacs and Ghostscript produces errors when interpreting 
some preview images, these are the ones that include an Optima clone (embedded). 
 when called with gswin32c it is displayed properly but error messages about 
illegal functions RD and ND are given.  Acroread on the other hand has no 
problems.
Comment 1 Christian Faulhammer 2005-12-21 08:46:59 UTC
Created attachment 1875 [details]
Testfile with embedded Optima clone and producing errors
Comment 2 Hin-Tak Leung 2005-12-22 05:24:34 UTC
The actual messages:
------------

   **** Embedded font uses undefined procedure(s):  RD 112 times, ND 8 times, 

   **** This file had errors that were repaired or ignored.
   **** The file was produced by: 
   **** >>>> MiKTeX pdfTeX-1.21a <<<<
   **** Please notify the author of the software that produced this
   **** file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
   **** specification.
-------------
Comment 3 Alex Cherepanov 2005-12-23 09:13:38 UTC
The font file is mostly correct and the Ghostscript warning is false.
The font defines /RD and /ND in userdict but Ghostscript provides the
replacement procedures on a higher level in the dictionary stack.

Probably, we need to re-arrange dictionary stack and define the
replacement procedures below userdict.
Comment 4 Christian Faulhammer 2005-12-23 10:00:42 UTC
What does mostly correct mean?
Comment 5 leonardo 2005-12-23 11:11:49 UTC
I guess "almost correct".
Comment 6 Alex Cherepanov 2005-12-24 15:19:22 UTC
Created attachment 1894 [details]
patch
Comment 7 Christian Faulhammer 2005-12-25 02:15:26 UTC
Thank you very much, up to now no problems occured on my system...I will report 
if anything is broken by the patch.
Comment 8 Alex Cherepanov 2005-12-25 07:30:11 UTC
Christian, thank you for using and testing Ghostscript.
The fix has not been reviewed nor committed to the Ghostscript code base.
So it's too early to close the bug. Besides, WORK resolution is reserved for the
cases that require no changes in the Ghostscript code. When the patch is accepted,
the bug will be FIXED.
Comment 9 Christian Faulhammer 2005-12-25 08:51:27 UTC
Ok, but despite of that I will have a watchout for any sideeffects of the 
changes...thank you for this great software.
Comment 10 leonardo 2006-01-10 18:48:12 UTC
Please commit the patch.
Comment 11 Alex Cherepanov 2006-01-11 05:23:26 UTC
The patch is committed to the trunk, rev. 6445

Move back-up CharString construction procedures (RD, ND, ...) to a special
dictionary and put it below userdict to avoid warnings when the font
defines them in userdict.

Some broken fonts forget to define CharString construction procedures because
non-PostScript font rasterizers don't detect this error. Ghostscript has
a back-up definitions of the procedures that do their job and issue a warning.

Other correct but old-fashioned fonts define CharString construction procedures
in userdict. We had the back-up procedures defined above userdict, where they
preempted the userdict definitions and issued a bogus warning. This patch moves
the definitions below userdict.


Comment 12 Alex Cherepanov 2007-06-30 10:26:37 UTC
*** Bug 689314 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***