Ciao,
Il 2022-09-05 21:23 ni...@lysator.liu.se ha scritto:
Marco Bodrato <bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it> writes:
I propose to also add a couple of tests to mini-gmp/tests/t-powm.c ,
to keep track of this.
Definitely needed, thanks for looking into that.
+ if (mpz_cmp_ui (res, 1) <= 0)
+ mpz_add_ui (res, res, 9);
Adding 9 looks very arbitrary?
It is arbitrary.
It is large enough to not be completely trivial and small enough to be
short to write.
I added a comment, saying that it is arbitrary :-)
Can we test mpz_powm (res, b, e, m), with e set to 0, and first |m| >
1,
then m = ±1? To get coverage for various signs and values for b and m.
The code handling e=0 is not so complex to deserve a sophisticated test.
Anyway, of course the test can be improved.
BTW, it seems docs for mpz_powm doesn't say explicitly what 0^0 (mod m)
should give? But docs for mpz_*_pow_ui does say that 0^0 yields 1, so
for consitency, powm should give 1 mod m, which I think is what the
code
(with fix) does.
Especially for _powm it is a good idea to return [1] for any x^0,
regardless of x (i.e. also when x is 0). Otherwise, we should check
whether x is 0 or not mod m.
We just added the exception that the class [1] is represented by 0 when
the modulus m=0. But that's not an exception wrt the above idea.
Ĝis,
m
_______________________________________________
gmp-bugs mailing list
gmp-bugs@gmplib.org
https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
