[bug #64043] mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff

[anonymous]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #64043 (project groff):


So, are we talking about vertical space inside section 8, or vertical space
right before section 11?


Your screenshots showed the spacing difference for section 8, my screenshots
showed the spacing difference right before section 11.

In both cases I observed that the spacing in the original document was about
twice the spacing you get after your changes (this can't be explained by
slightly different magnification)


Again, see the attached screenshot.


and then


troff output (before post-processing) would be more informative.


let's talk about shifting goalposts...


This is the only explanation I can imagine for your utter indifference to the
complete loss of text in the original document when formatted by AT&T Version
7 Unix troff.


I still fail to see what an obscure bug in AT&T Version 7 Unix troff has to do
with these changes.



This register assignment is ill-formed.


ok, just use


.nr PS 12p


instead and you get ms-3.png (groff 1.22.4) vs ms-4.png (groff 1.23). The
vertical space between "3" and "4" as well as between "6" and "7" is now gone
with groff 1.23.

(file #54624, file #54625)

    _______________________________________________________

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: ms-3.png                       Size:3 KB
    <https://file.savannah.gnu.org/file/ms-3.png?file_id=54624>

File name: ms-4.png                       Size:3 KB
    <https://file.savannah.gnu.org/file/ms-4.png?file_id=54625>



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64043>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/