Bitmask improvement #949
Merged
Bitmask improvement #949
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Collaborator
|
Regarding the failure on TruffleRuby, could you simply skip that test on TruffleRuby for the moment? |
Contributor
Author
|
@eregon, Thanks for the quick feedback. I was unsure of the diagnostic as the signed case did not cause the same trouble, despite also being out of bound for a FixNum. I'll iterate on the fix if other related issues pop. Edit: Seems to pass now. The appveyor seems to be throwing unrelated certificate errors. |
Member
|
LGTM, merged! Thank you very much! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello,
I encountered an issue with the current Bitmask implementation (I wrote those, so I am to blame), when the native type is signed, and a flag uses the most significant bit. The fact that the native value is negative in this case was causing some incorrect remainders when decoding the flags, and range errors when synthesizing the value from the flags.
This PR fixes the above issue, and adds relevant tests.
One of those tests fails on TruffleRuby: testing UINT64 bitmasks with most significant bit set:
unsupported type [9223372036854775811]which corresponds to0x8000000000000003 == (1<<63) | (1<<1) | (1<<0)I assume this is a limitation of TruffleRuby, but wanted to check before adding this to the expected failure list.
I've also taken the opportunity to clean the code up a bit.
Thanks,
Brice