On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Davide Libenzi wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Ehm, I think there's a little bit of confusion. The incorrect golden ratio 
> prime selection for 64 bits machines was coalescing hash indexes into a 
> very limited number of buckets, hence creating very bad performance on diff 
> operations. The result of the diff would have been exacly the same, just 
> coming out after the time for a cup of coffee and a croissant ;)

But my point is, you would have been better off _without_ an algorithm 
that cared about the word-size at all, or with just using "uint32_t".

See? Yes, a "unsigned long" has more bits for hashing on a 64-bit 
architecture. But that's totally the wrong way of thinking about it. YOU 
DO NOT WANT MORE BITS! You want the same damn answer regardless of 
architecture!

A diff algorithm that gives different answers on a 32-bit LE architecture 
than on a 64-bit BE architecture is BROKEN. If I run on x86-64, I want the 
same answers I got on x86-32, and the same ones I get on ppc32. Anything 
else is SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE!

So the whole idea that you should have used 64-bit values was broken, 
broken, broken. You should never have had anything that cared, because 
anything that cares is by definition buggy.

This is why we should use the _low_ bits. Never the high bits.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html