Bug 687120

Summary:	/rangecheck in --get-- with this file
Product:	Ghostscript	Reporter:	Georgi Mirchev <gmirchev>
Component:	PS Interpreter	Assignee:	Ray Johnston <ray.johnston>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	normal	CC:	bdenckla, htl10, jack, mae5, nozo, rk, sac
Priority:	P2
Version:	8.10
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
Customer:		Word Size:	---

Description Georgi Mirchev 2003-11-02 07:27:58 UTC

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

Comment 1 Alex Cherepanov 2003-11-03 05:29:35 UTC

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.

Comment 2 Jack Moffitt 2003-11-05 08:01:46 UTC

Confirmed with CVS HEAD.

Comment 3 Alex Cherepanov 2003-11-16 07:44:31 UTC

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.

Comment 4 Alex Cherepanov 2003-11-20 10:22:18 UTC

*** Bug 687153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Alex Cherepanov 2003-12-04 15:02:20 UTC

*** Bug 687183 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Alex Cherepanov 2003-12-04 15:13:54 UTC

*** Bug 668337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Alex Cherepanov 2004-05-13 05:00:50 UTC

Proposed fixes for the new font release are collected now
under the bug 687297.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 687297 ***

Comment 8 Alex Cherepanov 2005-01-07 16:32:55 UTC

*** Bug 687772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 Alex Cherepanov 2005-11-15 14:38:07 UTC

*** Bug 688381 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Hin-Tak Leung 2005-11-15 16:08:42 UTC

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?)

Comment 11 Alex Cherepanov 2006-01-26 16:13:19 UTC

*** Bug 688514 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 12 Alex Cherepanov 2006-03-15 12:54:34 UTC

*** Bug 688600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13 Alex Cherepanov 2007-02-28 06:25:08 UTC

*** Bug 689110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***