Subject: Re: [boost] unordered_map 32bit VS 64bit
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-26 11:26:48
On 26 January 2012 12:46, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't see why it shouldn't do better than required by the standard.
> It's quite normal for Boost components to extend the standard and
> provide superior solutions.
A few emails ago you were worried about wasted cycles.
> Anyway, if existing functional/hash functions are not suitable for the
> task, we can add the bit mixing wrapper and recommend its usage with
boost::hash should work well with std::unordered_map as it's defined
in the standard and boost::unordered_map should work well with
std::hash as it's defined in the standard. If that isn't the case then
they're failures. These are generic components, they should just work
without a wrapper or any such fuss.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk