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. -Peff -- 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
