25 Mar
2011
25 Mar
'11
3:42 p.m.
AMDG On 03/25/2011 08:32 AM, Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
The xor'ing of the first value doesn't bother me, but this displacement by 0x9e3779b9 of the first value does, since for 32-bit size_t values, we've just lost a bunch of info. It seems like the formula will result in less of the first value being applied to the overall hash, due to the "potential" unsigned 32-bit overflow caused by the addition. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the effect. If so, please correct me.
You won't lose anything. Unsigned addition wraps around. In Christ, Steven Watanabe