gsmiller commented on code in PR #13636:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13636#discussion_r1714509772
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene912/ForUtil.java:
##########
@@ -300,13 +301,14 @@ int numBytes(int bitsPerValue) {
return bitsPerValue << (BLOCK_SIZE_LOG2 - 3);
}
- private static void decodeSlow(int bitsPerValue, DataInput in, long[] tmp,
long[] longs)
+ private static void decodeSlow(
+ int bitsPerValue, IndexInput in, PostingDecodingUtil pdu, long[] tmp,
long[] longs)
Review Comment:
nit: looks like `in` is never actually referenced
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene912/ForUtil.java:
##########
@@ -300,13 +301,14 @@ int numBytes(int bitsPerValue) {
return bitsPerValue << (BLOCK_SIZE_LOG2 - 3);
}
- private static void decodeSlow(int bitsPerValue, DataInput in, long[] tmp,
long[] longs)
+ private static void decodeSlow(
+ int bitsPerValue, IndexInput in, PostingDecodingUtil pdu, long[] tmp,
long[] longs)
Review Comment:
Also, I think this is generally true of all the decode* methods?
Hmm... ah, I see. There are a couple rare cases where you need `in` but not
`pdu` and the others are vice versa. And I assume it's easier for code
generation to make the argument list consistent. OK... :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
