Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:50:05 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <20240603105005.0000091f@yahoo.com>
References: <v2n88p$1nlcc$1@dont-email.me>
	<v2qm8m$2el55$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<v2qnue$2evlu$1@dont-email.me>
	<v2r9br$2hva2$1@dont-email.me>
	<86fru6gsqr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<v2sudq$2trh1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<8634q5hjsp.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<v2vmhr$3ffjk$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<86le3wfsmd.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<v2voe7$3fr50$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<86ed9ofq14.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<v2vs40$3gflh$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<86sexypvff.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<20240602104506.000072e4@yahoo.com>
	<86le3nne36.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:49:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e115e67b3843932598c276339879624";
	logging-data="4002254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fTvAhC9iuVB5KliziAs4+hV6VBxiu0k8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QiCRIXv5vbA0MH7qlb0x6eqETvY=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3106

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 16:02:05 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 May 2024 19:27:48 -0700
> > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
> >>  
> >>> Am 26.05.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Tim Rentsch:
> >>>  
> >>>> I say the output quality is poor because I have run tests that
> >>>> show the poor output quality.  
> >>>
> >>> If you chose a prime whose double is beyond 64 bit there's an
> >>> equal distribution among the 64 bit modulos.
> >>>  
> >>>> I've done that with a prime of my own choosing and also with
> >>>> 18446744073709551557, the value you suggested.  
> >>>
> >>> Show me your code.  
> >>
> >> Oh get real.  It's not my job to make up for your
> >> laziness.  
> >
> > So, what were your conclusions?
> > Ignoring the speed of computation, would something like
> > cryptographic hash scaled to bucket size be a best hash for
> > this type of application?  Or some sort of less thorough
> > grinding of the bits is better?  
> 
> Factors that matter:

<snip>

> 
> Probably much of the above was obvious.  I make no apologies for
> that.  Also it may seem disjointed or unorganized.  If so then
> sorry about that chief, it's a big topic and there's a lot of
> ground to cover, and I tried to hit the most important
> highlights.

It sounds like you *postulate* that crypto is an ideal.
I am less in axioms and more interested in your experimental findings.