Fix type of Long.MIN_VALUE and Long.MAX_VALUE
#3100
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
`Long.MIN_VALUE` and `Long.MAX_VALUE` should be of type `long` like it is in the JDK sources. This change shouldn't impact any previously working proofs since these values get translated to the correct numbers in JavaDL as sort `int` regardless. Theoretically this change could introduce new type issues when parsing previously working Java code, but this seems unlikely since the `int` types would probably have been widened to `long` before anyway.
jwiesler
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2023
|
Nice catch, should not even have been accepted in the first place. Recoder does not seem to make all necessary type checks. |
|
I wonder why this compiled in the first place: assigning a |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Long.MIN_VALUEandLong.MAX_VALUEshould be of typelonglike it is in the JDK sources.This change shouldn't impact any previously working proofs since these values get translated to the correct numbers in JavaDL as sort
intregardless.Theoretically this change could introduce new type issues when parsing previously working Java code, but this seems unlikely since the
inttypes would probably have been widened tolongbefore anyway.