There is a ps file - PocketFin2 - that used to work with GhostScript 8.54, but with GhostScript 8.64 is crashing with the following error: Error: /stackunderflow in --astore-- Also, another ps file - tcpip.ps - also used to work with GhostScript 8.54, and now with GhostScript 8.64 is giving the following error: Error: /typecheck in --setcachedevice-- Could you please take a look on these two files and let us know what you'll find? Thanks
Created attachment 5269 [details] PocketFin2.ps
Created attachment 5270 [details] tcpip.ps
The 2nd file, tcpip.ps expects that /FontBBox attribute is an executable array. There's no such requirement in the Type 1 font spec and current version of Ghostscript comes with the fonts that have literal /FontBBox. I see 3 possible ways to fix the problem. 1. change our fonts 2. write /IdiomSet resource to patch the source automatically 3. redefine setcachedevice operator as: /setcachedevice { dup type /arraytype eq { aload pop } if setcachedevice } bind def
The 1st file also fails because of literal /FontBBox . Possible fixes are: 1. change our fonts 2. write a different /IdiomSet resource I think we have to change the fonts. BTW, the files run fine on Distiller, which means that Adobe has executable /FontBBox.
This is from Red Book Table 5.3: In many Type 1 fonts, the FontBBox array is executable, though there is no good reason for this to be so. Programs that access FontBBox sould invoke an explicit get or load to avoid unintended execution. I thought Adobe's type 1 font always had executable FontBBox.
Change literal /FontBBox array into executable one for better compatibility with legacy software. QuarkXPress 3.31, idraw, and some versions of dvips assume that /FontBBox is executable. New fonts that that have '{}' instead of '[]' around FontBBox values have been committed as a rev. 9990. Regression testing shows no differences. A test file that requires executable FontBBox fill be added to the public test suite.
Is this patch applicable to GS 8.64 too? Since the patch I need is for GS 8.64. Thanks
Yes, updated fonts can be used in v. 8.64.
Thanks, the fix worked.
Changing customer bugs that have been resolved more than a year ago to closed.