On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Luis Felipe Hernandez wrote:
> 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.
Looks fine to me.
Nicolas
