refactor: use getlocfromindex in no-missing-label-refs
#547
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mdjermanovic
reviewed
Oct 1, 2025
Co-authored-by: Milos Djermanovic <[email protected]>
mdjermanovic
deleted the
refactor-use-getlocfromindex-in-no-missing-label-refs
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request?
This PR originated from #536. While working on that, I found the scope had become too large, so I split this refactoring into a separate PR.
In this PR, I've used the native
getLocFromIndexmethod added in #376 instead of the customfindOffsetsutil.Notable changes:
findOffsetsutil with the nativegetLocFromIndex.What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
In this PR, I've used the native
getLocFromIndexmethod added in #376 instead of the customfindOffsetsutil.Related Issues
Ref: #376, #536
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
N/A