Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When I compile the following document:

\documentclass[10pt, oneside, a4paper]{report}
\begin{document}
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\end{document}

where the number of x's is greater than 32765, Adobe Reader is not able to read the document anymore, and just produces a blank page. Has anybody come across this before?

share|improve this question
3  
The actual limit seems to be 32767 = 2^{15}-1; other PDF viewers don't choke even with 1073741 characters (Skim on Mac OS X). –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 13:07
3  
Have you tried different versions of Adobe Reader/Acrobat? –  einpoklum Sep 29 '11 at 14:50
16  
How the heck did you come across this behavior? –  doncherry Sep 29 '11 at 15:04
2  
In the anglophone world, it is standard that the . in 32.765 would be interpreted as a decimal point. That is, 32.765 is less than 33. The typical thousands separator is the comma ,. The numbers here are not so big, so I edited the post to just remove the separator. I believe this is the least ambiguous approach. –  Seamus Sep 29 '11 at 15:12
    
@doncherry Where I work, we use LaTeX for document generation. One of the unit tests produce a very funky report, including such a string. The reason for the string, is actually to test what happens when generating an excel-sheet, where the maximum number of characters in a cell is larger than 32.767. –  utdiscant Sep 30 '11 at 17:49
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 12 down vote accepted

The implementation limit for the length of strings in content streams for readers on 32-bit architectures is 32767 according to ISO 32000-2008, Table C.1, so 32766 and 32767 should probably also work.

share|improve this answer
2  
I tried indeed with \romannumeral 32767000 to print a string consisting of 32677 m's and Reader opened it; with 32768 it didn't. Probably Reader is enforcing the limit, while other programs don't (see my comment above). –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 17:45
1  
@egreg: It doesn't have to enforce it: the limit is simply the length that any reader has to support - it's free to support longer strings, but producers are warned against creating them. –  Martin Schröder Sep 29 '11 at 20:02
1  
Said in other words: Adobe people decided to not support longer strings and they have very good reasons. –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 20:29
    
@egreg: Well, the implementation limits of 32 bit Adobe software are simply quite old; e.g. floats are limited to singe precision. –  Martin Schröder Sep 29 '11 at 20:37
    
@egreg: Why would Adobe people enforce such limits? What good reasons do you have in mind? –  Count Zero Sep 30 '11 at 12:05
show 3 more comments

I tried Adobe Reader X, it is OK. I think you may need to update your software.

share|improve this answer
    
I used Adobe Reader X myself, and I get the problem. –  utdiscant Sep 30 '11 at 17:45
    
Seeing the problem with Acrobat X on Win XP –  einpoklum Oct 2 '11 at 16:57
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.