On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:48:42PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:37:29PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:14:07PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Both functions were very similar already. Under the assumption that they > > > will always either see a range (or start of) that matches exactly or not > > > at all, reduce complexity and make get_set_interval_find() accept NULL > > > (left or) right values. This way it becomes a full replacement for > > > get_set_interval_end(). > > > > I have to go back to the commit log of this patch, IIRC my intention > > here was to allow users to ask for a single element, then return the > > range that contains it. > > That was my suspicion as well, but while testing I found out that no > matter what I passed to 'get element', I couldn't provoke a situation in > which get_set_interval_find() would have left and right elements which > didn't match exactly (or not at all). > > There must be some preparation happening before the call to > get_set_decompose() which normalizes things. And still, If I disable the > call to get_set_decompose() entirely, tests start failing. Hm, so the approximate or exact matching is broken? Or you mean they fail because you didn't expect the approximate matching?
