Fix NPY header length error due to signed->unsigned conversion#2889
Open
Kwonunn wants to merge 1 commit intoxtensor-stack:masterfrom
Open
Fix NPY header length error due to signed->unsigned conversion#2889Kwonunn wants to merge 1 commit intoxtensor-stack:masterfrom
Kwonunn wants to merge 1 commit intoxtensor-stack:masterfrom
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Checklist
API of new functions and classes are documented.Description
This PR fixes an error pertaining to reading the length of the header of an npy file. The header is read as two
chars and then combined into auint16_t. Previously due tocharbeing a signed value, any value with the MSB set would get converted as if it were a negative number and thus misinterpreted.For example, the bytes
F6 00which means a header of 246 bytes would be interpreted as a header of 65526 bytes.I think the code could be shortened a little, but I think when messing with bits like this it's best to be explicit. Also, the compiler will likely optimize it anyway.