Fix overflow checking in unsigned pow() #34942
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @aturon (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
This also brings up the problem that there's a lot of 100% duplicated code between the signed and unsigned integer implementations. This might have gotten fixed properly the first time if that duplication was reduced. Is there some reason why so much of the implementation is currently exactly duplicated between signed and unsigned integers if we're already using macros to generate the implementations within the signed/unsigned types? |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #35283) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
The pow() method for unsigned integers produced 0 instead of trapping overflow for certain inputs. Calls such as 2u32.pow(1024) produced 0 when they should trap an overflow. This also adds tests for the correctly handling overflow in unsigned pow(). For issue number rust-lang#34913
|
This is still waiting for review, is there anything I can do on this? |
|
Oops, sorry for missing this! Looks good to me! @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit b8c4e9c has been approved by |
Fix overflow checking in unsigned pow() The pow() method for unsigned integers produced 0 instead of trapping overflow for certain inputs. Calls such as 2u32.pow(1024) produced 0 when they should trap an overflow. This also adds tests for the correctly handling overflow in unsigned pow(). This was previously fixed for signed integers in #28248, but it seems unsigned integers got missed that time. For issue number #34913
The pow() method for unsigned integers produced 0 instead of trapping overflow for certain inputs. Calls such as 2u32.pow(1024) produced 0 when they should trap an overflow. This also adds tests for the correctly handling overflow in unsigned pow().
This was previously fixed for signed integers in #28248, but it seems unsigned integers got missed that time.
For issue number #34913