Generic instance of Binary is broken for types with 256 constructors #175
Conversation
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
The current implementation uses the output type to store the number of constructors (e.g. parameter size of putSum). This will fail if we try to serialize a type with 256 constructors, which can be encoded in Word8 but its size does not. This is slightly inefficient: We could use Word8 if getSum and putSum were implemented differently (which would make them more complicated and probably slower).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Word8 is used to store the constructor. While this is big enough to store the constructors, the size parameter of getSum and putSum will wrap to zero. We get this error when round-tripping any value of such a type:
This PR applies the quick&dirty fix: Use Word16 for such types. This is less space-efficient than using Word8. Alternatively, we could change getSum and putSum to cope with this edge case.