> The improved search for __{DATE,TIME}__ is uncontroversial, so that can be > applied right away. However, I would like to make the > LFG-based digest opt-in, at least for now, since I think we > need time to test it and to collect hash-savvy people's opinions.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. In this case, you'll probably just want to substitute the patch's fast_hash_buffer() call with hash_buffer() -- that is, don't accumulate the string to hash one character at a time like the code currently does. > By the way, can you provide some reference to why LFG (and the properties > you chose) would work well as a digest for ccache's purpose? What's the > expected collision rate? Or in other words: how well can we sleep at night, > knowing that we haven't messed up people's builds, if we would introduce the > LFG-based algorithm? :-) I don't have as good a reason as I should; I was just implementing Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at>'s suggestion from the previous thread, as it seemed pretty reasonable. Hopefully he can justify my decision for me. :D -Justin _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache