Hey, On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 18:07 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > > 4. I removed the two bigger if-clauses that deals with the range because > > (a) it will never happen that the range = 0 because we know that maximum > > will never equal minimum) and (b) it doesn't matter if lineIncrement is > >> the range - it won't effect the value of lineIncrement. The same > > applies for pageIncrement. > > Are you saying that if, in setValues, lineIncrement > range, then the > reference > implementation doesn't clamp it to range? Does Intel test for this > explicitly? > Likewise for the unit and block increments? That seems strange, but if > it's > the case, then this patch is OK.
Yes, it does seem strange, but it looks like that is the case. I have committed a mauve test that explicitly tests this. I will be committing this patch. Thanks Tom, Tania
