-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
[Random] fix undefined behaviour part2 #9085
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Note that my previous comment was wrong, it looks like gcc and clang both treat
x << y
asx << (y % 32)
, so this is a behavior change. See:https://godbolt.org/z/W1xn847Eh
This would be the equivalent here:
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.
I was about to say the same 😄 https://www.ideone.com/ijVb65
So I think you should revert the changes, then just change
status->last_generated_size
to(status->last_generated_size % sizeof(result))
in the shift?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.
Indeed! It's so complicated 😅
fix again: 2ebbefc
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.
Ah I hadn't seen Ilija's main comment:
Indeed, maybe here you would prefer to handle
result << (8 * status->last_generated_size)
not asresult << (8 * (status->last_generated_size % sizeof(result)))
but rather asstatus->last_generated_size >= sizeof(result) ? 0 : result << (8 * status->last_generated_size)
? https://www.ideone.com/Oy1PqSThere 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.
Additional thought: whatever the solution, it should be applied to both
rand_range32
andrand_range64
.I see that #9088 does, and also tackles an endianness issue 🙂