Limit to number of tools in tool table

Is there a limit to the number of tools in the tool table? I was under the impression only 99 tools were allowed. However I can't find reference to that now. I recently saw in another post that someone had a tool number T9999.

Just wondering if there is a limit?

This brings up another question. Why are we limited to 56 tools? I would like to have a single tool table that is consistent from Fusion 360 to LinuxCNC. However with a limit of 56 tools I will have to change my LinuxCNC tool table if my required tools change. This is a pain.

Does anyone know the reason behind the limit of 56 tools in the table? Is this something that could be changed?

Note I have not ran into the limit yet but I am sure I will shortly. Different drill sizes are the real culprit.

Andy i publicly vote for this to be put into the mainstream code base . it really should be there.
their are many users with big tool tables myself included

I vote for this also.

andypugh wrote:

NitroCH3NO2 wrote:

Does anyone know the reason behind the limit of 56 tools in the table?

Yes, the tool data is passed around between the different modules in a fixed size structure that only has room for 56 tools.

It's crazy, and I actually did a lot of work to fix it and put the tool data in an SQL database. But it was widely ignored.

it's the andypugh/tooltable branch here: git.linuxcnc.org/gitweb?p=linuxcnc.git;a=heads

I have reached the 56 tools limit on 2 machines, and that is simply annoying

And when this limit was reached, find that the number of tools in the tool table is the problem it's kind of difficult, linuxcnc don´t even starts so the tool table has to be edited manually.

My vote is for a SQL database solution, that permits some flexibility on the future. Some triggers that update automatically the tools offsets if changed on the database should be great.

Andy:

When i get no response such as you did - I take it as a go-ahead.
I announce that i'm going to add it to master unless i hear a good reason not too.
and after that I will commit it to master. once it's in master if there is a real reason not to have it there,
devs will be more forward.

It has happened a few times for me and wasn't negative.
And I vote for your work on tool table too.
and for JA branch

In fact I think we should peel off a 2.8 branch off master now then add JA right away.
It's the only way it will get added any time reasonable.
IMHO

Chris M