Subject: Re: [boost] unordered_map 32bit VS 64bit
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-26 06:29:53
On 26 January 2012 11:16, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Actually functional/hash doesn't. It's good enough for the standard,
>> but no better. For numbers that fit into the hash value, it just
>> returns them unchanged which is fine for a prime number of buckets but
>> not for power of 2 containers.
> Well, we probably better fix functional/hash then?
No, it's deliberate. It meets the standard's requirements. No more, no less.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk