You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think there's a bug in u64_array_remove_duplicates. When input is an array of size N > 0 consisting of a single value x, repeated N times, it doesn't return what I expect: Instead of returning an array { x } of count one, it returns an empty array.
Compiling with GCC 14.2.1 and running on Linux 6.12.4, this causes a trap from the AssertAlways. The expected behaviour would be that the assert passes, like in this modified version:
Note that by adding a different element 2, the assert now passes. In this case the different element was inserted at the end of the array, but that is (as one would expect) not significant.
I came across this while studying the various functions in the base layer of this project. The overall style and design of its building blocks are a great inspiration. Thanks for making this project's source public.
If you confirm this is a bug, I can have a try at a PR to fix it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think there's a bug in
u64_array_remove_duplicates
. When input is an array of sizeN > 0
consisting of a single valuex
, repeatedN
times, it doesn't return what I expect: Instead of returning an array{ x }
of count one, it returns an empty array.Small reproducible test case:
Compiling with GCC 14.2.1 and running on Linux 6.12.4, this causes a trap from the
AssertAlways
. The expected behaviour would be that the assert passes, like in this modified version:Note that by adding a different element
2
, the assert now passes. In this case the different element was inserted at the end of the array, but that is (as one would expect) not significant.I came across this while studying the various functions in the base layer of this project. The overall style and design of its building blocks are a great inspiration. Thanks for making this project's source public.
If you confirm this is a bug, I can have a try at a PR to fix it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: