Comment by jeffbee
2 days ago
I agree that's a funny coincidence. But, what about the change it wanted to commit? It is at least slightly interesting. It is doubly interesting that changing line 638 neither breaks nor fixes any test.
2 days ago
I agree that's a funny coincidence. But, what about the change it wanted to commit? It is at least slightly interesting. It is doubly interesting that changing line 638 neither breaks nor fixes any test.
There's a tweet with a Claude screenshot with a bit more context (linked on the PR).
I don't know enough about the project to know if it makes any sense, but the Zig contributor seemed confused (at least about the title).
This one https://x.com/joelreymont/status/1990981118783352952?s=20
I made the mistake of poorly documenting that PR.
Perhaps the offset is always zero anyway in that scenario
But yeah hard to say
It was a bug in my own modes to the Zig compiler not in the stock compiler itself.