Skip to content

Conversation

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member

PR Summary

close #4603

I'm not 100% sure this is the right fix (in particular, I'm not sure if a similar check for i < 0 and j < 0 would be useful), though it does fix the issue and I'm not seeing any performance regression with my very unscientific benchmark.

matthewturk
matthewturk previously approved these changes Jul 27, 2023
Copy link
Member

@matthewturk matthewturk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! If it's -1 it won't error out because we aren't disallowing wraparound, so it will not error but won't give the right answer. If we disabled wraparound but not boundscheck it should show up.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member Author

I'm confused. If we're not disallowing wraparounds, why is it erroring now ? Is "wraparound" only for negative indices ?

@matthewturk
Copy link
Member

That was my understanding.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member Author

I see. Then how about we disallow it and add the corresponding checks while we're at it ?

@matthewturk
Copy link
Member

matthewturk commented Jul 27, 2023 via email

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member Author

there you go

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review July 27, 2023 14:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

BUG: out-of-bounds memory access when trying to zoom on a ParticleProjectionPlot

3 participants