On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Graham Douglas <
graham.doug...@readytext.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 07:01, Fabrice Popineau wrote:
>
> Have you tried to enlarge the default stack size ?
> It should solve the problem.
> However, if the arrays can be static, then it is much more efficient.
>
>
On 09/03/2013 08:01 AM, Fabrice Popineau wrote:
Have you tried to enlarge the default stack size ?
It should solve the problem.
However, if the arrays can be static, then it is much more efficient.
Switched to static (rev 4642)
Best wishes,
Taco
___
On 03/09/2013 07:01, Fabrice Popineau wrote:
> Have you tried to enlarge the default stack size ?
> It should solve the problem.
> However, if the arrays can be static, then it is much more efficient.
>
> Fabrice
>
>
Hello Fabrice
Yes, I increased the default stack size this morning and it does
Have you tried to enlarge the default stack size ?
It should solve the problem.
However, if the arrays can be static, then it is much more efficient.
Fabrice
2013/9/3 Graham Douglas
> Hi
>
> Sure, I agree, dynamically allocating the arrays would probably be
> preferable.
>
> Best
> Graham
> __
Hi
Sure, I agree, dynamically allocating the arrays would probably be
preferable.
Best
Graham
___
dev-luatex mailing list
dev-luatex@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-luatex
Hello.
It's good if there is no need for multithreading or recursion.
More elegant solution would be something like that:
int *range_size = malloc(65537 * sizeof(int));
assert(range_size);
glyph_unicode_entry *gtab = malloc(65537 * sizeof(glyph_unicode_entry));
assert(gtab);
<...>
free(gtab);
fr
Hi All
I just completed "porting" LuaTeX to a native Windows build (Windows 7
Ultimate 64-bit) using Visual Studio. I hit a stack overflow error when
entering the following function:
// #line 456 "tounicode.w"
int write_cid_tounicode(PDF pdf,fo_entry*fo,internal_font_number f)
{
int range_size[
