Calculating ERLE in AEC more properly.

webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc

Index: webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc
diff --git a/webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc b/webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc
index 667ed2aafcae3a7b69c188bf1815a560984225bf..f186a7af100cd791c82542eb82cda99f33089750 100644
--- a/webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc
+++ b/webrtc/modules/audio_processing/test/audio_processing_unittest.cc
@@ -203,10 +203,10 @@ int16_t MaxAudioFrame(const AudioFrame& frame) {
 #if defined(WEBRTC_AUDIOPROC_FLOAT_PROFILE)
 void TestStats(const AudioProcessing::Statistic& test,
                const audioproc::Test::Statistic& reference) {
-  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.instant(), test.instant, 1);

[peah-webrtc, 2016/02/22 09:04:22]

I think it would be better if you could change the reference rather than change
the distance. The inaccuracy does not come from that the new computation has a
lower precision, but rather that the computation is now differently done.
Therefore it would make sense to change the reference (as it is that one that
has actually changed) an keep 1 as the numerical tolerance. Does that make
sense?

-  EXPECT_EQ(reference.average(), test.average);
-  EXPECT_EQ(reference.maximum(), test.maximum);
-  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.minimum(), test.minimum, 1);
+  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.instant(), test.instant, 2);
+  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.average(), test.average, 2);
+  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.maximum(), test.maximum, 2);
+  EXPECT_NEAR(reference.minimum(), test.minimum, 2);
 }
 
 void WriteStatsMessage(const AudioProcessing::Statistic& output,