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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add MemorySegment::mismatch #180
Add MemorySegment::mismatch #180
Changes from 1 commit
ba7c832
c5414aa
add1fe0
caf136f
d525e57
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This code could be simplified/rewritten to use
MemoryAddress' and VH, instead of unsafe access with object/offset addressing. E.g. you could maintain a
MemoryAddresslocal variable in the loop instead of the
offsetand keep increasing that address on each iteration of
ArraySupport::vectorizedMismatch`. Then, when you get out of the loop, the address already points at the base of the region to compare, and a simple for loop with an indexed VH should do the job.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.
How important is it that these tests operate on slices? Looking at the test code, it could have worked equally well if the input parameters were just two sizes, and then you did an explicit allocation (or maybe also receive a segment factory from the provider, so that you can test different segment kinds).
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.
Originally I had a version of the test that did compare specific segments, but it didn't scale well to different sizes and kinds ( we need to test both above and below the 8 byte threshold ). I removed a number of slice sizes, which greatly reduces the combinations. This may be enough, or I can certainly revisit the test's structure.