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