On 07/07/10 03:03, Jim Meyering wrote: > Do you know of any system on which sizeof dev_t is larger > than two times sizeof size_t? I was wondering if the added > (sizeof dev % sizeof h != 0) term is actually necessary anywhere. > The largest dev_t I've seen is 8 bytes wide. Just curious. > I know it is required, just in case.
I don't know of any, no. I imagine there may be some hosts that have 16-bit size_t and 64-bit ino_t, but the GNU coding standards say that we don't have to worry about such hosts. The general-case code is mainly there to document the general case and to make it clear what the intent is: I can't imagine any host where the (sizeof dev % sizeof h != 0) term is actually needed. It's just a hash function, so the code will still work even if the loop is removed completely; but it won't hash nearly as well on Cygwin, I expect.
