[bug #61075] TODO: item `check' target

Update of bug #61075 (project groff): Status: In Progress => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed Planned Release:None => 1.23.0

[bug #61089] [troff] assertion failed: 'desired_space.is_zero() && nspaces == 0'

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #61089 (project groff): [comment #2 comment #2:] > Is there anything I can do to pinpoint it? As Branden says, a bisect to pinpoint the problematic commit is the next logical step. I hesitate to do that myself because building groff is painfully slow on my ancient proce

[bug #61089] [troff] assertion failed: 'desired_space.is_zero() && nspaces == 0'

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #61089 (project groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > There are reasons to believe it isn't the culprit though: I'd add (3) the newly introduced code path emits a warning, so we can tell if the code is following commit bcdf2f4c

[bug #61100] [troff] do_request(): assertion failed: 'do_old_compatible_flag == -1'

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #61100 (project groff): I don't know. I just found out, when I used a '.do' inside a '.do while' loop. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #61100] [troff] do_request(): assertion failed: 'do_old_compatible_flag == -1'

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #61100 (project groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > In ".do while ...", the "do" is valid for the whole loop. Is this documented? I don't find mention of it in the Texinfo manual. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #61104] [PATCH] .At 32v should say "[Version 7] AT&T UNIX/32V", not "Version 32V AT&T UNIX"

Update of bug #61104 (project groff): Summary: .At 32v should say "[Version 7] AT&T UNIX/32V", not "Version 32V AT&T UNIX" => [PATCH] .At 32v should say "[Version 7] AT&T UNIX/32V", not "Version 32V AT&T UNIX" ___ Follow-up

[bug #61104] .At 32v should say "[Version 7] AT&T UNIX/32V", not "Version 32V AT&T UNIX"

URL: Summary: .At 32v should say "[Version 7] AT&T UNIX/32V", not "Version 32V AT&T UNIX" Project: GNU troff Submitted by: None Submitted on: Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:53:52 PM UTC Category:

[bug #61100] [troff] do_request(): assertion failed: 'do_old_compatible_flag == -1'

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #61100 (project groff): In ".do while ...", the "do" is valid for the whole loop. A simple example to cause a core dump is .\".cp 1 .pl 20v .do do nr a 1 .\".do do .nr a 1 \na ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #61089] [troff] assertion failed: 'desired_space.is_zero() && nspaces == 0'

Update of bug #61089 (project groff): Status:None => Confirmed Assigned to:None => gbranden Summary: distribute_space(): assertion failed: => [troff] assertion failed: 'desired_spa

[bug #61100] [troff] do_request(): assertion failed: 'do_old_compatible_flag == -1'

URL: Summary: [troff] do_request(): assertion failed: 'do_old_compatible_flag == -1' Project: GNU troff Submitted by: gbranden Submitted on: Wed 01 Sep 2021 08:59:57 AM UTC Category:

[bug #61089] distribute_space(): assertion failed:

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #61089 (project groff): There is a vague possibility that this is the change that uncovered the latent bug--this is the only change to adjustment code that I can recall since I've been involved with groff. There are reasons to believe it isn't the culprit though: (1) whi

[bug #61089] distribute_space(): assertion failed:

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #61089 (project groff): > So the change that introduced this assertion failure is somewhere further up the call chain. Is there anything I can do to pinpoint it? ___ Reply to this item at: