https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=514151
--- Comment #4 from Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <[email protected]> --- Interesting: when using your JS variant, things do not crash for me, also with 100000 :) IIRC there is a different code path when the length of an array is defined by a method, like always the case with the JS-based definition. Going to persue that some more. On your actual request, seems the initial code I drafted works for a first start (with no more crash in the way), my sample file gets the enddata: uint32 properly matching the very FF FF FF FF bytes I placed there (as by your example) :) Let's see if I can harden the logic around that, so things will not break otherwise. For the user experience, I could imagine that there would be a last entry in the array listing which points out explicitly that there are further array items, just not listed due to resource restrictions. Would you have any ideas/wishes how such a final entry should look like, any info you would expect to see? Also considering to make the "warning" symbol also show the related warning in a tooltip, was not obvious to me directly that one has to search the actual warning in the script console window. Any related ideas/wishes here also? ((For the future also wonder if array entries for overlarge arrays could be just estimated on-the-fly with a cache... but well, porting to a Qt6-compatible JavaScript engine is #1 task for now)) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
