[eurydice] fix cloop! macro step_by implementation#191
Open
robinhundt wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
The cloop macro contained a bug in the step_by variant when extracting with eurydice. The macro assumed that $start == 0. While this is the case in all current uses, a future use of the macro with a non-zero start could have caused a misextraction to C. This new version also guards against other possible issues with the step_by eurydice version, such as integer overflow and continue inside the loops body.
robinhundt
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 7, 2026 15:02
Contributor
Author
|
Ah, it seems the extraction is not compiling. This doesn't have high priority, as the existing uses of cloop don't run into these problematic edge cases. |
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 cloop macro contained a bug in the step_by variant when extracting
with eurydice. The macro assumed that $start == 0. While this is the case
in all current uses, a future use of the macro with a non-zero start
could have caused a misextraction to C.
This new version also guards against other possible issues with the
step_by eurydice version, such as integer overflow and continue inside
the loops body.
It also fixes a bug in the ml-kem version of the macro when $end is not divided by $step.
One thing I noticed is that the C extraction is a bit less nice. Eurydice seems to duplicate the loop for the two
first_itercases.