-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
[codegen] Special-case CFF INDEX struct size #1728
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
Open
behdad
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
cff-index-size
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is a funny little case hm? In general we don't like to have this kind of code be actually defined in codegen. Currently we have special labels for the different special patterns for computing a count (such as the
add_multiply, used elsewhere inIndex1andIndex2and so following that pattern we would have some annotation like,#[count(cff_index_data($offsets)], and maybe we would also introduce a type for the offsets themselves that would abstract the variable length so we could use a ComputedArray, which would simplify getting the last element... let me try putting that patch together as a first step.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.
Thanks.
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.
thinking about this more, is this patch motivated by a specific concern? it is true that the raw data array here will potentially include extra bytes belonging to another table, but given that we know the start/end offsets of the actual objects, is there any risk of us misinterpreting the data?
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.
Well one issue that current code is incorrect is that if count=0, we shouldn't expect offSize at all.
As for consuming the rest of the bytes, I noticed it, because I'm working on VARC table rendering, which uses Index2 in a couple of different ways. So I wasn't sure if the current code will work for me.
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.
We could just mark the count field as a version and then set the others to min version of 1. Hacky but should work?
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.
we have a general concept of a field being conditional on something, so that's fine: the annoying bit is just that it means
off_sizewould becomeOption<u8>.