Repository navigation
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #355 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.37% 99.38%
=======================================
Files 22 22
Lines 2577 2592 +15
=======================================
+ Hits 2561 2576 +15
Misses 16 16 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
6ad8f5e to
904c203
Compare
gdalle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We've had this discussion with @amontoison in the past and I'm very uncomfortable adding @inbounds to a loop without previously checking that all indexing falls in the proper range. However I think this could be an opportunity to tighten our typing, and maybe put Vectors everywhere we can, to simplify this kind of verification (there are lots of places where AbstractVectors are accepted but really shouldn't be).
544fe40 to
984adab
Compare
|
The tricky thing is to check that the CSC structure is satisfied. I tried adding an explicit loop and a first step but that was too expensive. What's best is to check bounds just for
|
Needs this one to be merged first, I'll rebase afterwards (so at the moment the diff contains both):
Add
@inboundsto the CSC recovery loops and propagate it through the shared write helper withBase.@propagate_inbounds.Fresh median timings for the same benchmark as #354:
On Julia 1.13.1 with Intel i7-12700K.