| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Be sure to test the extreme cases with and without bias.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
|
|
The word is spelt with a final "d" of course. What a massive messup!
Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
|
|
Align the expected result with one actually produced for easier visual
comparison; this has to take into account what the format specifiers
will actually produce rather than the characters they consist of. E.g.:
test_div64: ERROR: 10000000ab275080 / 00000009 => 01c71c71da20d00e,00000002
test_div64: ERROR: expected value => 0000000013045e47,00000001
(with a failure induced by setting bit #60 of the divident).
Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
|
|
Implement a module for correctness and performance evaluation for the
`do_div' function, often handled in an optimised manner by platform
code. Use a somewhat randomly generated set of inputs that is supposed
to be representative, using the same set of divisors twice, expressed as
a constant and as a variable each, so as to verify the implementation
for both cases should they be handled by different code execution paths.
Reference results were produced with GNU bc.
At the conclusion output the total execution time elapsed.
Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
|
