The signature is `getOrCreateSubrange(int64_t Lo, int64_t Count)`, so this updates the bindings to match.
This fixes a crash in `lowerDebugTypeImpl` when analyzing slices that have a length of 2^32 or
larger (up to `2^64 >> 3`, which still crashes, because above that the array size in bits overflows u64).
(Firstly, I changed `n` to `b`, as that is less confusing. It's not a length, it's a right boundary.)
The invariant maintained is `cur < b`. In the worst case `2*cur + 1` results in a maximum of `2b`. Since `2b` is not guaranteed to be lower than `maxInt`, we have to add one overflow check to `siftDown` to make sure we avoid undefined behavior.
LLVM also seems to have a nicer time compiling this version of the function. It is about 2x faster in my tests (I think LLVM was stumped by the `child += @intFromBool` line), and adding/removing the overflow check has a negligible performance difference on my machine. Of course, we could check `2b <= maxInt` in the parent function, and dispatch to a version of the function without the overflow check in the common case, but that probably is not worth the code size just to eliminate a single instruction.
This makes it so `first_child_index` will not be accessed when it is equal to `self.len`. (i.e. `self.items[self.len]` will not happen) The access itself was "safe" (as in, `self.len < self.items.len`) because we were only calling `doSiftDown` in the case where there was a stale value at `self.items[self.len]`. However, it is still technically a bug, and can manifest by an unnecessary comparison of a value to a copy of itself.
LLVM has trouble compiling the old implementation, (presumably) because `leading_zeros` is thought to be a `u7` rather than a `u6`, which means `63 - clz` is not equivalent to `63 ^ clz`, which means it can't deduce that the final condition can simply be flipped. (I am assuming `usize` is a `u64` here for ease of understanding, but it's the same for any power of 2)
https://zig.godbolt.org/z/Pbj4P7ob3
The new version is slightly better too because `isMinLayer(maxInt(usize))` is now well-defined behavior.
The 'Content-Length' header was inspected by mistake,
which makes it effectively impossible to use chunked
Transfer-Encoding when using the http client.
Tested locally with a HTTP server - data is properly sent
with POST method and the proper encoding declared, after the fix.
Opaque and `noreturn` makes sense since they don't represent real
values, but `null` and `undefined` are perfectly normal
comptime-only values.
Closes#16088
musl v1.2.4 dropped the "64"-suffixed aliases for legacy "LFS64" ("large
file support") interfaces, so this commit changes the corresponding Zig
logic to call the correct names.
