AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

1993.08.12 09:55 "libtiff on Alpha...", by Craig Hockenberry
1993.08.23 10:25 "Re: libtiff on Alpha", by Niles Ritter
1993.08.24 06:56 "libtiff and VMS file attributes (was Re: libtiff on Alpha)", by Karsten Spang
1993.08.24 17:59 "Re: libtiff and VMS file attributes (was Re: libtiff on Alpha)", by Sam Leffler

1993.08.24 17:59 "Re: libtiff and VMS file attributes (was Re: libtiff on Alpha)", by Sam Leffler

I suspect that you *are* using VMS. If so, do a "dir/full" on the transferred files and see if the record format is "Stream_CR" or not. The libtiff code uses "unix io", which gags very badly if the file is in fixed record or variable-length record format. For example, doing a "read" on a fixed record will only read in a single records' worth of data, even if you requested more. In addition, you can only "seek" to record boundaries. The files created on the Alpha work because they were forced to have "Stream_CR" record format by the unix-io routines.

What we have usually found is that when files are transferred via FTP to a VAX/VMS machine, the file structure could turn out to be any of several different types, depending on which version of the VMS FTP software was used, and which FTP commands are available.

A patch of mine did not make it into libtiff 3.2. This patch lets libtiff read TIFF files with any file organisation under VMS. Well, maybe not *any*, but at least STREAM* formats and FIXED formats with an even record length, but as long as you transfer the files using "binary", I have never experienced a TIFF file not falling into one of these cathegories.

According to Sam, the patch has been incorporated into the next version. If you want it, you may request it from me. As a matter of principle, I will not post it to the list, I think that only "authorized" patches from Sam should be posted.

I don't care if others post patches. Given my recent track record on getting new code out it would make sense. One of course needs to beware of such patches being mismatched with later distributions.

Sam