Re: [AUCTeX] Preview problems when using a certain document class

[David Kastrup]

Tassilo Horn <address@hidden> writes:

> Running `Preview-PDF2DSC' with ``pdf2dsc lipics-test.pdf 
> lipics-test.prv/tmp15014g-K/preview.dsc''
> Error: /invalidaccess in --setpagedevice--
> Operand stack:
>    false   false   --dict:1/1(L)--   --nostringval--   --dict:60/60(ro)(L)--  
>  --dict:1/1(L)--   --dict:1/61(G)--   OutputAttributes   --dict:1/1(L)--   
> --dict:1/61(G)--   OutputAttributes   --dict:1/1(L)--
> Execution stack:
>    %interp_exit   .runexec2   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   
> --nostringval--   2   %stopped_push   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   
> --nostringval--   false   1   %stopped_push   1916   1   3   %oparray_pop   
> 1915   1   3   %oparray_pop   1899   1   3   %oparray_pop   1787   1   3   
> %oparray_pop   --nostringval--   %errorexec_pop   .runexec2   --nostringval-- 
>   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   2   %stopped_push   --nostringval--   
> 1925   0   3   %oparray_pop   1924   0   3   %oparray_pop   --nostringval--   
> 1878   2   3   %oparray_pop   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   
> --nostringval--   %array_continue   --nostringval--   --nostringval--
> Dictionary stack:
>    --dict:1177/1684(ro)(G)--   --dict:0/20(G)--   --dict:79/200(L)--
> Current allocation mode is global
> Current file position is 1899
> GPL Ghostscript 9.09: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1

Fascinating.  It would appear that they managed to break pdf2dsc in
Ghostscript 9.09.  One should probably check whether it works on _any_
PDF file or whether it bombs out only on those from preview-latex.

> Preview-PDF2DSC exited abnormally with code 1 at Thu Sep  5 17:21:57
> Running `Preview-Ghostscript' with ``/usr/bin/rungs 
> -dOutputFile\=\(lipics-test.prv/tmp15014g-K/pr1-\%d.png\) -q -dDELAYSAFER 
> -dNOPAUSE -DNOPLATFONTS -dPrinted -dTextAlphaBits\=4 -dGraphicsAlphaBits\=4 
> -sDEVICE\=png16m -r94.08x93.9321''
> Ghostscript filter: Args out of range: [(1 0)], 3

That one also looks quite obscure and may or may not be a followup error.

-- 
David Kastrup