This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: hash policy patch
- From: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:30:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: hash policy patch
- References: <4E2F1A56.email@example.com> <4E2F204B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4E31C6CE.email@example.com> <7B3982F6-FEAA-4023-AC36-84B10A513651@oracle.com> <4E3849E9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4E5FD090.email@example.com>
On 09/01/2011 08:36 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Today, I had time to look a bit more into these issues. I think we
should handle one change at a time. About the first one above, I don't
like the new __strict parameter, looks like we are going through this
complication only because we are refactoring to use _M_next_bkt, because
otherwise, if I understand correctly, we are not really incorrect, since
we are talking about something like *strict* equality of *floating*
point quantities, by itself something badly defined (indeed, carefully,
the standard talks about "keeping the load factor below this number",
using plain English, not a formula).
I think we can delay point 2.
For points 3 and 4 above, I would like to see separate patches and
separate testcases. Is it possible?
Also, please be more descriptive in the ChangeLog entry, saying which
specific functions are touched. Then, splitting the big patch will also
help clarifying the rationale behind each smaller one.
Thanks for the feedback, I agree that splitting the patch will be
better. I was also not really proud of the __strict parameter. First
step tomorrow I hope.