On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:08:56AM +0100, Karsten Blees wrote:

> Khash is OK for sha1 keys, but I don't think it should be advertised
> as a second general purpose hash table implementation. Its far too
> easy to shoot yourself in the foot by using 'straightforward' hash-
> and comparison functions. Khash doesn't store the hash codes of the
> keys, so you have to take care of that yourself or live with the
> performance penalties (see [1]).
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/237876

Yes. I wonder if we should improve it in that respect. I haven't looked
carefully at the hash code you posted elsewhere, but I feel like many
uses will want a macro implementation to let them store arbitrary types
smaller or larger than a pointer.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to