Ciao,
Il 2020-10-03 03:58 Seth Troisi ha scritto:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM Marco Bodrato
Il 2020-03-25 02:25 Seth Troisi ha scritto:
+ t = diff > 0 ? ((t + 1) | (t > 1)) :
+ ((t == 3) ? 2 : ((t - 2) | 1));
Maybe move this to the caller side? Or partially, leaving here just
ASSERT (t >= 2);
t |= (t != 2);
I moved this to the caller side (so that both findnext and
Really? :-) But it's ok anyway.
I would also check many gaps around 2^{16n}, to check if everything
works correctly when the search crosses the limb boundaries.
Maybe structuring the test with a table {"number(base16?)", gap},
i.e.
with (also) something like:
{"65521", 16},
{"4294967291", 20},
{"281474976710597", 80},
{"18446744073709551557", 72},
{"1208925819614629174706111", 78},
{"79228162514264337593543950319", 78},
{"5192296858534827628530496329220021", 100},
{"340282366920938463463374607431768211297", 210},
I did this (using hex form) I threw in some 16*n-1 also
I'd really add some more tests around boundaries... for both next and
prec.
Ĝis,
m
_______________________________________________
gmp-devel mailing list
gmp-devel@gmplib.org
https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
