Merged
Conversation
bkchr
requested changes
Apr 29, 2024
408864f to
0624055
Compare
0624055 to
570ffb8
Compare
ggwpez
reviewed
Apr 30, 2024
bkchr
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2024
ggwpez
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2024
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The current implementation of
PrefixInputseems to be inconsistent. It checks for the buffer being empty, but only after the prefix is taken, so trying to read with an zero-length buffer discards the prefix and it cannot be read any longer.Though the behavior can be fixed for the empty buffer case, I think it is better just to remove the check completely and add a "note" comment, since this is an internal mechanism used to parse compacts only and the buffer is always allocated properly.