webshell

Ghost Exploiter Team Official

Directory >> /home/softsuitetech/public_html/DEMO/Chat/node_modules/tailwindcss/lib/lib/

File / Folder	Size	Action
.	-
.htaccess	0.27KB	edt ren
cacheInvalidation.js	2.959KB	edt ren
collapseAdjacentRules.js	2.102KB	edt ren
collapseDuplicateDeclar...	3.511KB	edt ren
content.js	6.384KB	edt ren
defaultExtractor.js	9.235KB	edt ren
detectNesting.js	1.643KB	edt ren
evaluateTailwindFunctio...	9.208KB	edt ren
expandApplyAtRules.js	21.885KB	edt ren
expandTailwindAtRules.js	12.129KB	edt ren
findAtConfigPath.js	1.941KB	edt ren
generateRules.js	37.319KB	edt ren
getModuleDependencies.js	2.854KB	edt ren
load-config.js	1.361KB	edt ren
normalizeTailwindDirect...	3.555KB	edt ren
offsets.js	10.677KB	edt ren
partitionApplyAtRules.js	1.439KB	edt ren
regex.js	1.888KB	edt ren
remap-bitfield.js	2.727KB	edt ren
resolveDefaultsAtRules.js	6.354KB	edt ren
setupContextUtils.js	56.376KB	edt ren
setupTrackingContext.js	7.952KB	edt ren
sharedState.js	2.448KB	edt ren
substituteScreenAtRules.js	1.038KB	edt ren

// @ts-check
/**
 * We must remap all the old bits to new bits for each set variant
 * Only arbitrary variants are considered as those are the only
 * ones that need to be re-sorted at this time
 *
 * An iterated process that removes and sets individual bits simultaneously
 * will not work because we may have a new bit that is also a later old bit
 * This means that we would be removing a previously set bit which we don't
 * want to do
 *
 * For example (assume `bN` = `1<<N`)
 * Given the "total" mapping `[[b1, b3], [b2, b4], [b3, b1], [b4, b2]]`
 * The mapping is "total" because:
 * 1. Every input and output is accounted for
 * 2. All combinations are unique
 * 3. No one input maps to multiple outputs and vice versa
 * And, given an offset with all bits set:
 * V = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * Let's explore the issue with removing and setting bits simultaneously:
 * V & ~b1 | b3 = b2 | b3 | b4
 * V & ~b2 | b4 = b3 | b4
 * V & ~b3 | b1 = b1 | b4
 * V & ~b4 | b2 = b1 | b2
 *
 * As you can see, we end up with the wrong result.
 * This is because we're removing a bit that was previously set.
 * And, thus the final result is missing b3 and b4.
 *
 * Now, let's explore the issue with removing the bits first:
 * V & ~b1 = b2 | b3 | b4
 * V & ~b2 = b3 | b4
 * V & ~b3 = b4
 * V & ~b4 = 0
 *
 * And then setting the bits:
 * V | b3 = b3
 * V | b4 = b3 | b4
 * V | b1 = b1 | b3 | b4
 * V | b2 = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * We get the correct result because we're not removing any bits that were
 * previously set thus properly remapping the bits to the new order
 *
 * To collect this into a single operation that can be done simultaneously
 * we must first create a mask for the old bits that are set and a mask for
 * the new bits that are set. Then we can remove the old bits and set the new
 * bits simultaneously in a "single" operation like so:
 * OldMask = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 * NewMask = b3 | b4 | b1 | b2
 *
 * So this:
 * V & ~oldMask | newMask
 *
 * Expands to this:
 * V & ~b1 & ~b2 & ~b3 & ~b4 | b3 | b4 | b1 | b2
 *
 * Which becomes this:
 * b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * Which is the correct result!
 *
 * @param {bigint} num
 * @param {[bigint, bigint][]} mapping
 */ "use strict";
Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", {
    value: true
});
Object.defineProperty(exports, "remapBitfield", {
    enumerable: true,
    get: function() {
        return remapBitfield;
    }
});
function remapBitfield(num, mapping) {
    // Create masks for the old and new bits that are set
    let oldMask = 0n;
    let newMask = 0n;
    for (let [oldBit, newBit] of mapping){
        if (num & oldBit) {
            oldMask = oldMask | oldBit;
            newMask = newMask | newBit;
        }
    }
    // Remove all old bits
    // Set all new bits
    return num & ~oldMask | newMask;
}

<=Back