Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix #37199, indexing for 1-d views with offset ranges #37204

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 27, 2020
Merged

Conversation

mbauman
Copy link
Member

@mbauman mbauman commented Aug 25, 2020

We had been assuming that IdentityUnitRange matched the indices of the parent (like Slices) but they define their own offset axes. Further, other AbstractRanges may be similarly offset. We do not need to consider other offset AbstractArrays as this code only applies to IndexLinear SubArrays.

We had been assuming that IdentityUnitRange matched the indices of the parent (like Slices) but they define their own offset axes. Further, other `AbstractRanges` may be similarly offset. We do not need to consider other offset `AbstractArrays` as this code only applies to `IndexLinear` `SubArray`s.
@mbauman mbauman requested a review from timholy August 25, 2020 22:30
@mbauman mbauman added arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] backport 1.5 bugfix This change fixes an existing bug labels Aug 25, 2020
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2020
29 tasks
@JeffBezanson JeffBezanson merged commit 701885b into master Aug 27, 2020
@JeffBezanson JeffBezanson deleted the mb/37199 branch August 27, 2020 20:54
Copy link
Member

@timholy timholy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Belated approval, thanks Matt!

simeonschaub pushed a commit to simeonschaub/julia that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2020
…Lang#37204)

We had been assuming that IdentityUnitRange matched the indices of the parent (like Slices) but they define their own offset axes. Further, other `AbstractRanges` may be similarly offset. We do not need to consider other offset `AbstractArrays` as this code only applies to `IndexLinear` `SubArray`s.
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2020
We had been assuming that IdentityUnitRange matched the indices of the parent (like Slices) but they define their own offset axes. Further, other `AbstractRanges` may be similarly offset. We do not need to consider other offset `AbstractArrays` as this code only applies to `IndexLinear` `SubArray`s.

(cherry picked from commit 701885b)
johnnychen94 added a commit to johnnychen94/julia that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2020
OffsetArrays issues 133 and 100 are fixed by JuliaLang#37204.
johnnychen94 added a commit to johnnychen94/julia that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2020
OffsetArrays issues 133 and 100 are fixed by JuliaLang#37204.
timholy pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2020
* upgrade to OffsetArrays v1.3.0

* everywhere include OffsetArrays

* more tests for #37204

OffsetArrays issues 133 and 100 are fixed by #37204.
Keno pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2024
* upgrade to OffsetArrays v1.3.0

* everywhere include OffsetArrays

* more tests for #37204

OffsetArrays issues 133 and 100 are fixed by #37204.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] bugfix This change fixes an existing bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants