[codegen] Better handling of computed lengths #1251
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This fixes an issue where we were incorrectly truncating the all computed lengths to be u16s, even if the value would be stored as a u32. We now keep computed values as usize and then generate a conversion for the appropriate type only at the callsite, instead of blindly converting to a u16 earlier on.
dfrg
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
|
even when permitted I still don't think it's very common to have an array with > 65536 items... |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes an issue where we were incorrectly truncating all computed lengths to u16, even if the resulting value is storedwould be stored as a u32.
We now keep computed values as usize and then generate a conversion for the appropriate type only at the callsite, instead of blindly converting to a u16 earlier on.
(this issue was pointed out in #1244 (comment); thanks @Hoolean!)