Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-18 10:09:40

Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:

> At Monday 2005-04-18 03:52, you wrote:
>> Currently "functional/hash - hash_float_test" fails on Tru64/CXX6.5
>> (See
>> The reason of the failure is that QNaN and 0 give the same hash code
>> on this platform. I was wondering what the expected hash of QNAN
>> actually should be. Is it some platform dependent value?
> Am I missing something here? Since it is obvious that one canNOT
> generate a unique hash for all possible inputs, why should there
> necessarily be a difference between any 2?

You're probably right. Maybe the author of the test could perhaps clarify
the motivation for this test, then.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at