This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:57:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: hash policy patch
- References: <4E2F1A56.3010000@free.fr> <4E2F204B.6060207@oracle.com> <4E31C6CE.2070906@free.fr> <7B3982F6-FEAA-4023-AC36-84B10A513651@oracle.com> <4E3849E9.5000505@free.fr> <4E5FD090.8070102@oracle.com> <4E666E75.8020600@gmail.com> <4E667219.90403@oracle.com> <4E6675EA.3090608@oracle.com>
On 09/06/2011 09:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/06/2011 09:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sure, we can use a double (I can do that as part of the patch I
posted today), seems a good idea. Note that the unordered containers
code, at first had already some issues with 32-bit vs 64-bit: for
sure the issue you are pointing out is much less noticeable with
32-bit longs.
Actually, I'm going to use consistently long double in these
functions: should be more than enough in terms of precision at least
for 21st century machines ;)
Paolo.
Ok, I let you finalize this part then, indeed long double will be even
better.
I had plan on my side to use a '+ 1' on calls to the refactored
_M_next_bkt, but I think a ceil should be fine too.
François