library_int53: range assertion warnings, comments #16879
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
kainino0x
force-pushed
the
int53-assertions
branch
from
2eed90c to
21cbc89
Compare
sbc100
reviewed
May 5, 2022
| } | ||
| var result = (lo >>> 0) + (hi >>> 0) * 4294967296; | ||
| #if ASSERTIONS | ||
| if ((result >>> 0) != (lo >>> 0)) warnOnce('convertU32PairToI53() resulted in rounding (lo=0x' + lo + ', hi=0x' + hi + ') to 0x' + result.toString(16)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why wouldn't I want to warn each time this happens? Also, why not make it an assertion?
If there valid use cases for passing out-of-range values to this API, then presumably the developer will want to way to disable the warning or assertion whichever one we go with.
If there are no valid reasons then I think assertion makes more sense.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Extracted from old PR #15244.
Per comment there:
#15244 (comment)
These changes seemed to optimize away fully in non-ASSERTIONS builds.