>> AFAICS, near misses on wraparound in and of itself have no correlation
>> with statistical changes in your data, so I'd agree it isn't
>> necessary, and the fact that it behaves differently in this more
>> narrow case than it would in the more general case, when these two
>> cases are (as far as I've ever known) supposed to behave the same way,
>> I'd be +1 to remove this.
> Yeah, that matches my impression. +1 to remove it.
That is fine with me also.
The patch LGTM.
--
Sami
