Hi, I would like to report a problem with groff compilation when the "blank line macro" request (.blm) is used. It seems that there is some sensitivity to whether there is a blank line just before or after the .blm line (either with or without an argument). I attach also a testcase for you to try.
To reproduce the problem, invoke: $ groff -ms groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff > /dev/null There will be warnings like this: groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:33: warning [p 1, 1.0i]: can't break line (line number may vary; the last time I tried it became 61). If we use `-ww' command-line option also, then it's becoming more verbose: groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:LL' not defined groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:ri' not defined groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:pri' not defined ... groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:41: warning [p 1, 1.0i]: can't break line groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:41: warning [p 1, 1.0i]: can't break line If we use `-b' option, the problem is blamed on s.tmac: /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:1095: backtrace: macro [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:172: backtrace: macro `TL' groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:LL' not defined /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:1095: backtrace: macro [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:172: backtrace: macro `TL' groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:ri' not defined /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:1095: backtrace: macro [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/share/groff/1.18.1/tmac/s.tmac:172: backtrace: macro `TL' groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff:38: warning: number register `0:pri' not defined ... If you examine the resulting postscript file, the letters became very tiny (virtually illegible). If we add a blank line JUST above the `.blm blankline' text line, all the problems above disappear, and the postscript result is OK. What's more bizzare is that you can alleviate the problem by removing the first `.br' line in the testcase. But that .br was needed in my actual script. So it looks like `.blm' is an evil macro in certain instances. Why is this? Let me know if you need more detail of the problem. I am using Ubuntu Linux 7.04 and GROFF version 1.18.1 . The same problem appears under Fedora Core 6 + GROFF 1.18.1 combination. -- Wirawan Purwanto College of William and Mary Physics Department Williamsburg, VA 23187
groff-1.18-blm-bug.groff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ bug-groff mailing list bug-groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
