On 26/10/2022 21.52, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:08:41AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 26/10/2022 07.39, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> >>> No more false positives nor false negatives anymore. I'm sending you >>> the patch separately. >> >> While you're at it, may I suggest also adding a few test cases where the >> buffers differ by 128, e.g. 0x0 v 0x80 and 0x40 v 0xc0. > > I initially thought about it but changed my mind for +/- 0xc0 that > covered the same cases in my opinion. Do you have a particular error > case in mind that would be caught by this one that the other one does > not catch ? Not really, but in a sense the opposite: for the +/- 0xc0 case, both ways of comparison will give the wrong sign because -192 becomes +64 and vice versa. For +/- 0x80, one way of doing the comparison will "accidentally" produce the right answer, and I thought that might also be a little interesting. I'm fine for proposing a respin of the patch to improve > it if it brings some value, It's your call, you can respin, do an incremental patch, or just ignore me :) Rasmus
