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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 21, 2023. It is now read-only.
The function below segfaults, but works fine with dense lists (my compiler is gcc 7.2.0, OS Windows). Please confirm if you can reproduce this or if I have done something silly.
If the skip list is continuous range and by that I mean a dense list it works fine but for sparse lists it is failing. My research problem requires sparse lists as well.
Sorry for the late response. Somehow, I didn't see any notification for this issue.
It looks like this is indeed a bug in the implementation. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on this project at the moment. I'd be happy to merge a bug fix.
@flippingbits The issue is that you do not scan the entire list in the end if you do not find a match in the proxy lane array. Proxy lane array and data list are not identical. So if no match is found in the proxy lane array you need to scan the entire data list.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
The function below segfaults, but works fine with dense lists (my compiler is gcc 7.2.0, OS Windows). Please confirm if you can reproduce this or if I have done something silly.
Adding every hundredth integer to the skip list produces an incorrect number of matches (0, 20 expected), but does not segfault.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: