fix: correct bounds check in XCDA array access#17215
Merged
CISC merged 1 commit intoggml-org:masterfrom Nov 12, 2025
Merged
Conversation
CISC
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2025
Member
|
Nice catch, thank you, merging when CIs are done. |
Anico2
added a commit
to Anico2/llama.cpp
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2026
blime4
referenced
this pull request
in blime4/llama.cpp
Feb 5, 2026
Seunghhon
pushed a commit
to Seunghhon/llama.cpp
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
In the constructor of
llm_tokenizer_ugm,xcda_arrayis an array withxcda_array_sizeelements:llama.cpp/src/llama-vocab.cpp
Lines 776 to 777 in 017ecee
The valid index range is
[0, xcda_array_size).When
xcda_array_viewis constructed using these parameters:llama.cpp/src/llama-vocab.cpp
Line 1048 in 017ecee
The accessible index range remains
[0, xcda_array_size).Therefore, in the
xcda_array_view::get_nodefunction, it should use>=to check for bounds violation instead of>.