Veikka Tuominen

Results 363 comments of Veikka Tuominen

Looks like LLVM doesn't like us returning 800kb arrays, prefixing the `zeroes` call with `comptime` makes the issue go away.

> Got similar results (compile-time-wise & memory-wise) with this piece of code: That's because you're making a struct with over 2 million fields. Arrays are able to use an optimization...

One possible addition to this (or a separate proposal) I've thought about is to also add a `src: ?builtin.SourceLocation` parameter. That combined with a new `@calleeSrc` builtin that behaves like...

`src.line` is not comptime-known to avoid breaking incremental compilation https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/12016#issuecomment-1178092847

The aarch64 CI makes those tarballs automatically but it mysteriously died three days ago a65ba6c85a6c01aecf28e39ba6717fea15757521

I'm able to reproduce this (or something similar) with https://github.com/Vexu/bun/commit/94d54c3fd1743b8851aa1873aabacf0ce8064ff0 and running `make headers`.

Reduction: ```zig fn FnPtrStage2Wrap(comptime T: anytype) @TypeOf(&struct { const FnPtrType = T; pub const fn_ptr: FnPtrType = undefined; }.fn_ptr) { return &struct { const FnPtrType = T; pub const fn_ptr:...

~~This looks like the cause: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/684264908e50bc8537fc10859e93ccdf8d94509e/src/Module.zig#L3868-L3872~~ I don't get the error in the issue but it is saying that `data_ptr` is pointing to uninitialized byte(s): ``` ==51599== Syscall param writev(vector[...])...

> * `zig_i64 const a0` - is `int64_t const` different from `int64_t`? I don't 100% remember the rules in C here `zig_i64` is `int64_t`: ```c // zig.h typedef uint8_t zig_u8;...

> Running `zig build test --zig-lib-dir lib` gives me an enormous amount of memory leak Known issue, build with llvm backend enabled so that the compiler uses `malloc`.