Is this one ok ?
François
On 28/09/2015 21:16, François Dumont wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 15:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> @@ -501,6 +503,129 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>>> mutable std::size_t_M_next_resize;
>>> };
>>>
>>> + /// Range hashing function considering that second args
On 25/09/2015 15:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> @@ -501,6 +503,129 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>> mutable std::size_t_M_next_resize;
>> };
>>
>> + /// Range hashing function considering that second args is a power
>> of 2.
>
> Does this mean "assuming" not "considering"?
I assume
On 24/09/15 22:08 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Working on it I realised that despite the comment on _M_next_bkt
saying "no smaller than n" the method can return a value smaller for big
n values. This is not likely to happen but I prefer to take care of it.
I just make sure we won't try to reh
On 11/09/2015 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11/09/15 14:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 11/09/15 15:11 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, François Dumont wrote:
>>>
Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
using power of
On 11/09/2015 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11/09/15 14:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 11/09/15 15:11 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, François Dumont wrote:
>>>
Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
using power of
On 11/09/15 14:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11/09/15 15:11 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, François Dumont wrote:
Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
using power of 2 number of buckets allowing a faster modulo operation.
This is obvio
On 11/09/15 15:11 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, François Dumont wrote:
Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
using power of 2 number of buckets allowing a faster modulo operation.
This is obvious when running the performance test that I have
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, François Dumont wrote:
> Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
> using power of 2 number of buckets allowing a faster modulo operation.
> This is obvious when running the performance test that I have adapted to
> use this alternative poli
Hi
Here is a patch to offer an alternative hash policy. This one is
using power of 2 number of buckets allowing a faster modulo operation.
This is obvious when running the performance test that I have adapted to
use this alternative policy. Something between current implementation
and the tr1
