Bugs item #304, was opened at 2005-03-02 17:25 You can respond by visiting: http://sarovar.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=493&aid=304&group_id=106 Category: Fonts Group: v1.21a Status: Open Resolution: Accepted Priority: 3 Submitted By: Robert (schlcht) Assigned to: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel) Summary: Names of expanded fonts not in log output Initial Comment: When using font expansion, the log output will not contain the names of the expanded fonts but the null character instead (resp. ^^@). %------------------------------------- \pdfadjustspacing=2 \pdffontexpand\font 20 20 5 autoexpand \tracingoutput=1 test \parfillskip 0pt test \bye %------------------------------------- Regards, Robert. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Robert (schlcht) Date: 2006-11-15 01:23

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2217 problem with autoexpanding now at bugs/696 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: The Thanh Han (hanthethanh) Date: 2006-10-23 10:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=710 Here is an attempt to fix this problem (reversed patch attached). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Robert (schlcht) Date: 2006-09-03 17:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2217 I've attached an example using Kepler MM (tfm+pfb included, please delete after testing). MM fonts are probably the only case where one would not want to use the autoexpand feature. At first sight, saying "autoexpand" or not doesn't seem to make a difference, since pdftex will always prefer existing expanded fonts (pfb) over autoexpanding them, anyway. However, there are some slight differences in the pdf. This is probably because the provided tfm file is different from the metrics that pdf calculates itself in the case of autoexpand. That is, autoexpand may result in a mismatch between the provided pfb and the calculated tfm, is that correct? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel) Date: 2006-09-01 19:02 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929 currently i even can't get a test file do expansion at all without "autoexpand". E. g. Robert's example above, without "autoexpand", doesn't use expanded fonts. Maybe that's the reason for the missing expand parameter in the log? Can anybody provide a test file for this case? Regards, Hartmut ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Martin Schröder (oneiros) Date: 2006-09-01 10:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=421 Is this really a problem, i.e. is there a reason _not_ to use the autoexpand feature in new documents? Hartmut, did you look into this bug? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Robert (schlcht) Date: 2005-10-15 22:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2217 If the font is not autoexpand'ed, its name will still not be written to the log file. (pdftex 1.30.3; same test file, without "autoexpand") Regards, Robert. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Martin Schröder (oneiros) Date: 2005-05-12 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=421 This has been fixed in 1.30.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel) Date: 2005-03-30 20:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929 This patch is based of Thanh's change file showfont.ch, which he gave me during EuroTeX2005 (it's also included, renamed here to showfont-thanh.ch). Use showfont.ch for the patch. There is now a new integer variable \pdftracingfonts. It is zero by default, then we get a log like this (see robert050302.log): ...\tenrm t ...\tenrm (+20) e Without font expansion, this default should be compatible with TeX's original log output. If \pdftracingfonts is set to 1 (or greater), we get a more verbose log (see tst-304.log): ...\xivtt (cmtt10@14.0pt) t .\xivtt (cmtt10+20@14.0pt) e Seems to work with change file showfont.ch coming directly after after hz.ch. Patch only roughly tested with pdfetex, likely to give problems with pdfxtex, as the variable numbering might differ. Log format to be agreed upon... Regards, Hartmut ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sarovar.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=493&aid=304&group_id=106