Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> It wouldn't break. It's a hash function, it's going to
get moduloed with some
> smallish number anyway. The hash function just need a
reasonable chance to
> get different results for different pointers, fast. The
latter is the reason
> why I wouldn't bitshift it with size_t, even though
those bits would likely
> nearly always be zero.
Isn't this a *really* good reason to strip the last couple
bits? I.e.
because otherwise with a small table you will *always* get
collisions
due to the last 2-4 bits always being 0?
Seriously, how long does a bit-shift operation take? It's
measured in
single-digit /cycles/ after all... It's measurable compared
to the cost
of calling the hash function, but not compared to much
else.
--
Matthew
A pool hall put up a sign in their front window that read:
"Profound
language prohibited within." I could just imagine some
people discussing
the meaning of life and being told to take it outside. --
Scott Adams
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
