"think the matter is complex enough that this may undermine the chances a
complete fix materializes soon. Also if you or someone else come up with a
fix it would be recommendable for such SO related issue to add a unit test
on an anonymized file that shows the same or very similar behavior."
All t
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 12:39, F. E. wrote:
> I sadly cannot share the file I'm testing against, since it contains
> confidential data.
>
I think the matter is complex enough that this may undermine the chances a
complete fix materializes soon. Also if you or someone else come up with a
fix it w
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 23:00, Michal Sudolsky wrote:
> @Francesco Pretto maybe you could fix that in the new
> podofo? Something like this could work for example (pseudocode):
>
Just to be crystal clear: if a patch materializes I'll be happy to review
it but I'm currently having a severe lack
On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 12:51 +0100, F. E. wrote:
> Increasing the s_maxRecursionDepth would defeat the purpose of the
> RecursionGuard. The guard is already aligned to the typcial stack
> size of 256, so increasing the max would just open door to stack
> overflows the guard is meant to prevent. If a
@zyx
Increasing the s_maxRecursionDepth would defeat the purpose of the
RecursionGuard. The guard is already aligned to the typcial stack size of
256, so increasing the max would just open door to stack overflows the
guard is meant to prevent. If anything, the guards max value may actually
be to
