Fix variable-byte encoding of large longs #61
Merged
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
Previously, the branch encoding longs in 9 bytes was unreachable because the condition `val < (1L << 63)` is always false. Only negative longs should be encoded using 10 bytes.
piotrrzysko
force-pushed
the
fixLongVariableByte
branch
from
1718217 to
9640566
Compare
Collaborator
|
Thanks @piotrrzysko . This feels correct @lemire . |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously, the branch encoding longs in 9 bytes was unreachable because the condition
val < (1L << 63)is always false. Only negative longs should be encoded using 10 bytes.