Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”)

[Carl Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:04 AM Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on
LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2020, 00:23 +0200 schrieb Valentin Villenave:
> > On 6/17/20, Valentin Villenave <valentin@villenave.net> wrote:
> > > `make doc’ has been broken for nearly a week on my system (even with a
> > > clean git clone), with the following error:
> > >
> > > xdvipdfmx:fatal: typecheck: Invalid object type: -1 7 (line 2161)
> >
> > Git bisect actually tells me that xdvipdfmx started misbehaving from
> > the same commit that caused gs issues:
> >
> > 017927b4d63c317e1fc450be2537ccc058072538 (HEAD)
> >     Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwenn@gmail.com>
> >     Date:   Fri Jun 5 20:36:42 2020 +0200
> >     Unify calling convention for command-line and API GS use
> >
> > Jonas reverted some parts of that with MR !148, but that particular
> > issue was left unaddressed.  That affects xdvipdfmx svn/20190225,
> > which is shipped with Fedora 32, and with a more recent build from the
> > 2020 texlive release (20200315). (Now, I haven’t been able to
> > reproduce it on LilyDev so other libraries may be a factor as well.)
> >
> > It already took me many hours to find the eight regtests that trigger
> > this, but there are also many snippets and NR ly blocks, which I won’t
> > be able to track down :-/
>
> I can reproduce this kind of error with an empty .eps file, I'm
> attaching a (very minimal) example. The .ps file mimics the input that
> LilyPond passes to Ghostscript since the commit mentioned above.
>
> So the following fails:
> $ gs -dNODISPLAY -dNOSAFER -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -dEPSCrop 
> -dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPrinted=false broken.ps
> $ xelatex include.tex
> but
> $ pdflatex include.tex
> succeeds.
>
> Likewise the "old" way of doing
> $ gs -dNOSAFER -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -dEPSCrop -dAutoRotatePages=/None 
> -dPrinted=false -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=broken.pdf broken.eps
> $ xelatex include.tex
> is fine, so it's likely something between Ghostscript and XeTeX (on
> Arch Linux: GS 9.52, TeXlive 2019, xdvipdfmx 20190503).
>

is it the difference between an output .ps file and an output .eps file?

Carl