-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 786
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
Fix simd comparison kernels #1286
Conversation
@alamb I'm sorry for only noticing this issue so late. Would be nice if we could still include it in the 9.0 release. |
@jhorstmann -- I agree this seems serious -- I'll make a new RC to include this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @jhorstmann
@@ -2442,6 +2442,20 @@ mod tests { | |||
let b = b.slice(0, b.len()); | |||
let c = $DYN_KERNEL(a.as_ref(), b.as_ref()).unwrap(); | |||
assert_eq!(BooleanArray::from($EXPECTED), c); | |||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 in case anyone else is curious, without the code fix, this test fails like this:
---- compute::kernels::comparison::tests::test_primitive_array_eq stdout ----
thread 'compute::kernels::comparison::tests::test_primitive_array_eq' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
left: `BooleanArray
[
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
...80 elements...,
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
]`,
right: `BooleanArray
[
false,
false,
true,
true,
true,
true,
true,
true,
true,
true,
...80 elements...,
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
false,
false,
true,
false,
false,
]`', arrow/src/compute/kernels/comparison.rs:2486:9
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
...
I plan to cherry-pick this and create a 9.0.1 branch / RC |
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #1285 .
Rationale for this change
The refactoring of the simd comparison in #1146 introduced silly mistake that was not noticed due to missing test coverage.
What changes are included in this PR?
Apart from the bugfix, this adjusts the tests so they automatically also test a larger version of the test input and so cover the chunked part.