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(-) Thanks, -- Max
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 02:10, Max Chernoff
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
participants (2)
-
luigi scarso -
Max Chernoff