Conversation
With update to 15.x many vars got changed to unsigned. Wipe relies on truncation (of an uint16_t) for modulo operation, and was therefore broken. Using directly an uint16_t like my proposal *should* be overall faster than using an unsigned and then doing a modulo. (Not an expert)
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Did you also do the cherry-pick to main @blazoncek ? |
I think yes. |
With update to 15.x many vars got changed to unsigned. Wipe relies on truncation (of an uint16_t) for modulo operation, and was therefore broken.
Using directly an uint16_t like my proposal should be overall faster than using an unsigned and then doing a modulo. (Not an expert)