Re: [Hp5400backend-devel] Trouble with driver: Segmentation fault
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
soumarmt
From: Lilith <luc...@nt...> - 2003-06-02 23:44:07
|
I untarred a clean version of sane-backends-1.0.12 and then added '#define NO_STRING_VERSION_MATCH' to the beginning of hp5400_internal.c scanimage now recognises scanner: scanimage -L device `hp5400:/dev/usb/scanner0' is a Hewlett-Packard HP54xx Flatbed Scanner flatbed scanner device `hp5400:/dev/usb/scanner0' is a Hewlett-Packard HP54xx Flatbed Scanner flatbed scanner Tried scanning black and white document, resulting image has a blue tint, but is readable. Tried to run Xsane 0.84 (version packaged with RH8). Says no device found. Tried 'xsane hp5400:/dev/usb/scanner0', error message is 'Failure to open device 'hp5400:/dev/usb/scanner0'. Operation not supported.' Downloaded and compiled xsane-0.91.tar.gz <ftp://ftp.mostang.com/pub/sane/xsane/xsane-0.91.tar.gz> (available here: ftp://ftp.mostang.com/pub/sane/xsane ) Xsane now works, but lists the scanner twice under 'available device', just like it does with scanimage -L. (Will that cause any problems?) I'm very happy to have a working scanner now. Thanks for your help. Lilith Thomas Soumarmon wrote: >Hi, > >you may try adding the following line at the begiinning of the >hp5400_internal.c file : > >#define NO_STRING_VERSION_MATCH > >A cleaner thing would be to have the -DNO_STRING_VERSION_MATCH added to the >compilation line, but I don't know how to do it with the SANE configure >program. Explanation : In the C compiler command (something like "cc OPTIONS >file.c"), the -DNO_STRING_VERSION_MATCH would define NO_STRING_VERSION_MATCH >in the compilng process and then avoid compiling the version string match >process. > > >The segmentation fault could be caused by following actions : >* scanner is recognized by its USB identification >* scanner is disconnected because it has not a known version string >* scanner is accessed after disconnection => seg fault >It is just a guess. > >Tell us if it works after that modification. > >Thank you for your report, > >Thomas. > > |