-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 915
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
Handle multibyte_split
byte_range out-of-bounds offsets on host
#11885
Merged
rapids-bot
merged 3 commits into
rapidsai:branch-22.12
from
upsj:refactoring/multibyte_split_cutoff_host
Oct 15, 2022
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why is this? If you want to completely differentiate between these types, simple type aliasing like this is not enough. Instead, strong types should be prefered:
Using strong types may be more difficult to do arithmetic operations but you can always cast the values to
int64_t
when doing so.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.
Yes, this approach has its shortcomings, I mainly wanted to make clear what different offsets point to, more avoiding raw integer types for readability than true type safety. I need to to enough arithmetic on the types that using an enum class would be really inconvenient. Something like
BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF
would probably fit.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.
Both approaches have pros and cons. For this case, I think a simple
using
is sufficient, with a weakly aliased type. It does pose some benefit to readability, and the need for arithmetic operators makes it difficult to use a strong type like anenum class
. I'm happy with the tradeoffs that @upsj took in this case.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.
Also: @ttnghia we need strong types for the left/right comparator indices (the last time I remember discussing this topic) to ensure that function signatures match the given types. That isn't as much of a concern here because the weakly aliased types here aren't being passed to functions with multiple overloads for plain integers and strong types.