Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

#5270: Change int/uint range_rev to use (hi,lo] instead of [hi,lo). #7684

Conversation

pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

Changes int/uint range_rev to iterate over range (hi,lo] instead of [hi,lo).

Fix #5270.

Also:

  • Adds unit tests for int/uint range functions
  • Updates the uses of range_rev to account for the new semantics. (Note that pretty much all of the updates there were strict improvements to the code in question; yay!)
  • Exposes new function, range_step_inclusive, which does the range [hi,lo], (at least when hi-lo is a multiple of the step parameter).
  • Special-cases when |step| == 1 removing unnecessary bounds-check. (I did not check whether LLVM was already performing this optimization; I figure it would be a net win to not leave that analysis to the compiler. If reviewer objects, I can easily remove that from the refactored code.)

(This pull request is a rebased version of PR #7524, which went stale due to recent unrelated changes to num libraries.)

pnkfelix added 2 commits July 10, 2013 09:35
… semantics.

Also added unit tests of range code to test refactoring.  The
num-range-rev.rs test will need to be updated when the range_rev
semantics change.
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

hmm, seems like the make check failures are actually due to the refactoring I made, rather than the change to the range_rev semantics itself. Curiouser and curiouser.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

From what I can tell, the make check failures are actually reproducible on master, without my refactoring. It is just that my refactoring makes them more reliably reproducible.

I spent some time tracking this down and the best I have come up with is Issue #7797, but I am not 100% certain that that is the same bug.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2013
…ss-issue5270-2ndpr, r=cmr

Changes int/uint range_rev to iterate over range `(hi,lo]` instead of `[hi,lo)`.

Fix #5270.

Also:
* Adds unit tests for int/uint range functions
* Updates the uses of `range_rev` to account for the new semantics.  (Note that pretty much all of the updates there were strict improvements to the code in question; yay!)
* Exposes new function, `range_step_inclusive`, which does the range `[hi,lo]`, (at least when `hi-lo` is a multiple of the `step` parameter).
* Special-cases when `|step| == 1` removing unnecessary bounds-check.  (I did not check whether LLVM was already performing this optimization; I figure it would be a net win to not leave that analysis to the compiler.  If reviewer objects, I can easily remove that from the refactored code.)

(This pull request is a rebased version of PR #7524, which went stale due to recent unrelated changes to num libraries.)
@bors bors closed this Jul 16, 2013
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2021
…1995

fix for issue rust-lang#7683

Fixes rust-lang#7683.

For Repeat  [x; y] (x is the type and y is the times to repeat) . When y > 32, the compiler will report an error:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=7148558162685e91056e0550797ea74c

Because https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6cdd42f9f8dd4e5e5ba0aa816bc4c99ab8b102f9/library/std/src/primitive_docs.rs#L538
/// Arrays of sizes from 0 to 32 (inclusive) implement [`Default`] trait
/// if the element type allows it. As a stopgap, trait implementations are
/// statically generated up to size 32.

So here to detect this situation.

changelog: [`derivable_impls`]: No longer lints when arrays bigger than 32 elements are involved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Change range_rev to be inclusive on the low end
2 participants