Bug 700988 - Wrong bounding box resolved by bbox device
Summary: Wrong bounding box resolved by bbox device
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 700952
Alias: None
Product: Ghostscript
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Regression (show other bugs)
Version: 9.27
Hardware: PC Linux
: P4 normal
Assignee: Default assignee
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-04-20 06:33 UTC by Jonas Smedegaard
Modified: 2019-04-20 08:27 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments
PDF file containing a single glyph. (3.68 KB, application/pdf)
2019-04-20 06:34 UTC, Jonas Smedegaard
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jonas Smedegaard 2019-04-20 06:33:40 UTC
Ghostscript 9.27 resolves a different - and wrong - bounding box for the attached PDF file.

This was reported at https://bugs.debian.org/927429 along with below test output, and I can confirm reproducibility of the 9.27 part:

[stretch]
$ gs -sDEVICE=bbox -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE o.pdf
GPL Ghostscript 9.26 (2018-11-20)
Copyright (C) 2018 Artifex Software, Inc.  All rights reserved.
This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
Processing pages 1 through 1.
Page 1
%%BoundingBox: 153 716 159 722
%%HiResBoundingBox: 153.323995 716.777978 158.759995 721.277978

[buster]
$ gs -sDEVICE=bbox -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE o.pdf
GPL Ghostscript 9.27 (2019-04-04)
Copyright (C) 2018 Artifex Software, Inc.  All rights reserved.
This software is supplied under the GNU AGPLv3 and comes with NO WARRANTY:
see the file COPYING for details.
Processing pages 1 through 1.
Page 1
%%BoundingBox: 148 713 153 717
%%HiResBoundingBox: 148.283995 713.195978 152.855995 716.975978
Comment 1 Jonas Smedegaard 2019-04-20 06:34:57 UTC
Created attachment 17352 [details]
PDF file containing a single glyph.
Comment 2 Chris Liddell (chrisl) 2019-04-20 07:21:12 UTC
I suspect it's a another instance of:

https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700952
Comment 3 Ken Sharp 2019-04-20 08:27:49 UTC
Current code produces the same answer as 9.26. It is indeed a duplicate of bug #700952.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 700952 ***