Maybe fix bug in remove_trailing_zeros(u64)
#66
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
Not sure if this was a typo or not, but seems like might be given that the integer wouldn't fit into a `u32`. If this is not a typo and was intentional, I'd be interested to understand the reasoning behind it. Even if this is a typo, it does not appear to have any visible impact on the behavior. At least on my compiler (Clang, macOS), the UINT32_C macro applied to integers that are too large to fit in 32 bits still seems to produce values of type `unsigned long`, which is 64 bits on my compiler. I don't know if there are other compilers where this indeed results in a bug.
|
This is indeed a typo. Thanks for catching that! |
jk-jeon
added a commit
to jk-jeon/rtz_benchmark
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Not sure if this was a typo or not, but seems like might be given that the integer wouldn't fit into a
u32. If this is not a typo and was intentional, I'd be interested to understand the reasoning behind it.Even if this is a typo, it does not appear to have any visible impact on the behavior. At least on my compiler (Clang, macOS), the UINT32_C macro applied to integers that are too large to fit in 32 bits still seems to produce values of type
unsigned long, which is 64 bits on my compiler. I don't know if there are other compilers where this indeed results in a bug.