Partial fix for invalid syntax in emitted precompile statements #28808 #32610
Conversation
|
@JeffBezanson, could you look at this? |
| n += ninc; | ||
| jl_uv_puts(out, buf, ninc); | ||
| } | ||
| n += sz; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the n += ninc inside the loop sufficient to count the amount of output?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also would be good to use this code for showing strings as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like a good thing to put in a helper function
| n += jl_static_show_x(out, (jl_value_t*)vt, depth); | ||
| n += jl_printf(out, ", 0x"); | ||
| uint32_t a = 0x01020304; | ||
| uint8_t *endian_bom = (uint8_t*) &a; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is undefined behavior (since it is observably different on different platforms). use the standard macro (BYTE_ORDER)
| n += jl_printf(out, "%02" PRIx8, data[i]); | ||
| } | ||
| else { | ||
| n += jl_printf(out, "reinterpret("); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| n += jl_printf(out, "reinterpret("); | |
| n += jl_printf(out, "bitcast("); |
| uint32_t a = 0x01020304; | ||
| uint8_t *endian_bom = (uint8_t*) &a; | ||
| if (*endian_bom == 0x01) { // big endian | ||
| for(int i = 0; i < nb; ++i) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| for(int i = 0; i < nb; ++i) | |
| for (int i = 0; i < nb; ++i) |
| for(int i = nb - 1; i >= 0; --i) | ||
| n += jl_printf(out, "%02" PRIx8, data[i]); | ||
| } else { | ||
| assert(0); // unsupported endianness |
| n += ninc; | ||
| jl_uv_puts(out, buf, ninc); | ||
| } | ||
| n += sz; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like a good thing to put in a helper function
|
Bump; it'd be great to get this fixed |
|
Sorry for not getting back to this yet. I'll adopt the requested changes as soon as I finished my thesis in 2 weeks. |
|
Bump again :) |
KristofferC
changed the title
This pull request fixes some of the issues encoutered in #28808, namely incorrect output from
--trace-compile. Just runjulia --trace-compile=stderrwith the following example codes to see the altered behaviour.Case 1:
Previous output:
New output:
Case 2:
Previous output:
New output:
I used reinterpret for primitive types instead of directly calling the constructor here (which to my understanding is wrong since the constructor can do whatever it likes with the argument). This should work correctly even for user defined primitive types.