On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> And for such kind of test, more values to test is not a bad thing. So
> I'd suggest keeping { 4294967295, 65535 ] as well in the set as this
> represents a nice
> edge case.
>
> It wouldn't hurt adding the entire set from 0 to 9 as well. Many
> different edge cases in that range.
I see, agreed, thank you for your suggestions. I'll go ahead and carry
out the following changes:
1. Replace the ULONG_MAX test case with the aforementioned { 2147483648,
46340, "large input"} case
2. Add the { 4294967295, 65535 } edge case
3. Add missing cases between 0 - 9
4. Add a couple more cases
The updated test cases would be as follows:
{ 0, 0, "edge case: square root of 0" },
{ 1, 1, "perfect square: square root of 1" },
{ 2, 1, "non-perfect square: square root of 2" },
{ 3, 1, "non-perfect square: sqaure root of 3" },
{ 4, 2, "perfect square: square root of 4" },
{ 5, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 5" },
{ 6, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 6" },
{ 7, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 7" },
{ 8, 2, "non-perfect square: square root of 8" },
{ 9, 3, "perfect square: square root of 9" },
{ 16, 4, "perfect square: square root of 16" },
{ 81, 9, "perfect square: square root of 81" },
{ 256, 16, "perfect square: square root of 256" },
{ 2147483648, 46340, "large input: square root of 2147483648" },
{ 4294967295, 65535, "edge case: ULONG_MAX for 32-bit" },
I'll incorporate these changes and submit a new revision of this patch.
Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address.
Thanks again for your guidance,
Felipe
