mapleFU commented on issue #14923:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14923#issuecomment-1366657071
@rok I reproduce this problem on my pc by applying the change below:
```diff
- for (uint32_t i = num_miniblocks; i < mini_blocks_per_block_; i++) {
- bit_width_data[i] = 0;
- }
+ // for (uint32_t i = num_miniblocks; i < mini_blocks_per_block_; i++) {
+ // bit_width_data[i] = 0;
+ // }
```
But I think the code just break our standard, by unuse `bit_width_data[i] =
0;`, we will leak some mini-blocks, the real code would be:
```c++
for (uint32_t i = num_miniblocks; i < mini_blocks_per_block_; i++) {
bit_width_data[i] = 1 /* or other random bit width for miniblock */;
for (uint32_t j = 0; j < values_per_mini_block_; j++) {
bit_writer_.PutValue(0, bit_width_data[i]);
}
}
```
And previous case would lead to:
* write less bits than expected for the last block
* Last block `bit_width_data` random
So I think here is no bug. If I'm wrong, please correct me @rok
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
