On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 01:46:43PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Nice! Looks like I was wrong about the checksums being the same on le/be
> systems for repeated byte values. On closer inspection it looks like >> 17
> at least ensures this will not be true.
Thanks for the computations with big-endian! I would have just gone
down to the 8kB page for the expected results by seeing three other
tests blowing up, but no objection to what you have here either. I
have checked the computations with little-endian from your patch and
these are correct.
--
Michael