On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 02:10, Max Chernoff <t...@maxchernoff.ca> wrote:
> Hi Luigi, > > Can you please increase sup_dest_names_size (patch attached)? A user > reported that the current value is insufficient for some of their > documents, and as far as I can tell, increasing its value should be safe > (but you'll know better than I do). I randomly guessed that I should > increase it by a factor of 4, but maybe a different value would be > better? > > I've verified that I can build the LuaTeX binaries and formats with this > change, but I don't have any documents large enough to reach the old > limit, so I can't actually confirm that the patch works as intended. > > --- > Subject: [PATCH] Increase sup_dest_names_size by a factor of 4 > > Some users are receiving a > > sorry [number of destination names (dest_names_size)=131072] > > error with real-world documents > > > https://12000.org/my_notes/faq/LATEX/html_and_latexchapter3.htm#x4-70003.1 > > https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2025-June/008101.html > > https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2022-March/007663.html > > and increasing sup_dest_names_size to 524288 should fix it. > > Named destinations are stored in a PDF /Dests name tree, and the PDF 2.0 > specification §7.9.6 states that name trees can be arbitrarily large, > and should not be subject to implementation-defined limits. The PDF 1.7 > specification §C states that documents should not contain more than 8 > million indirect objects, and even the new sup_dest_names_size is well > beneath that. > > dvipdfmx only supports reading name trees 5 levels deep; with the 31 > objects per level that ConTeXt defaults to, this is >30 million named > objects, well above this new LuaTeX maximum. > --- > source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/pdf/pdfdest.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > OK, I will check it. -- luigi
_______________________________________________ dev-luatex mailing list -- dev-luatex@ntg.nl To unsubscribe send an email to dev-luatex-le...@ntg.nl
