hash policy patch

[François Dumont]

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