Re: [boost] [hash2] Question about cryptographic guarantees of hash_append_unordered_range

Darryl Green wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, 7:19 am Peter Dimov via Boost, mailto:boost@lists.boost.org > wrote:

...

Bitwise xor has the problem that xoring two equal values yields 0, so the sequences [1], [1, 1, 1], [1, 2, 2] and so on all hash to the same thing.

Exactly. Surely this means your other comment that you could add the unit64_t[] elements individually, should hopefully fail smhash testing? Add without carry on 64 bit chunks is better than add without carry on 1 bit chunks but still not ideal?

It's better, yes. It's obviously never worse than adding a single uint64_t.