[gs-bugs] [Bug 690650] New: Differences in raster output

bugs.ghostscript.com-bugzilla-daemon at ghostscript.com bugs.ghostscript.com-bugzilla-daemon at ghostscript.com
Thu Jul 23 13:39:13 PDT 2009


http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690650

           Summary: Differences in raster output
           Product: Ghostscript
           Version: HEAD
          Platform: Macintosh
        OS/Version: MacOS X
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P4
         Component: General
        AssignedTo: support at artifex.com
        ReportedBy: marcos.woehrmann at artifex.com
         QAContact: gs-bugs at ghostscript.com


I ran a comparison of the output from Ghostscript head (r9862) on a variety of machines using 32 bit 
and 64 bit binaries on the nightly regression files.


There were 1193 files in the test, each of which was run 15 times with different combinations of output 
format, resolution, and banding, for  total of 17895 tests (the run time for these varied from ~40 
minutes on my i7 to ~40 hours on my g5).

I'll attach spreadsheets with the complete results and with the results from the x86_64 machines that 
we are planning to use for the cluster regressions (not including the MacPro which I don't have acccess 
to).

For each output file the md5sum is calculated and this is available in the spreadsheet.  In addition I 
generate a profile for each output file, summarizing the differences in md5sums.  This profile is 
generated by sorting the list of machines in alphabetical order and assigning a different letter of the 
alphabet for each unique md5sum, for example, there were 4 machines, called M1, M2, M3, and M4, 
and all had the same md5sum for a particular the profile for that file would be 'aaaa'.  If M1 and M3 
had the same checksum as each other but M2 and M4 had unique checksums the profile would be 
'abac'.

Note that one or two files in the batch appear to be non-deterministic, generating a different 
checksum on each machine; I haven't removed these from the results but probably should do,



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.



More information about the gs-bugs mailing list