Message81750
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | LambertDW, Rhamphoryncus, chemacortes, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger |
| Date | 2009-02-12.12:09:20 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.015705584 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1234440604.7414.14.camel@fsol> |
| In-reply-to | <1234429046.69.0.362401801997.issue5186@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Other than that, the patch looks fine to me; x ^= x >> 4 would be fine > too. I've just tried x ^= x >> 4 and the speedup is smaller on our microbenchmark (time_object_hash.py). I conjecture that trying to maintain the sequentiality of adresses may have beneficial cache locality effects. Should we care? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2009-02-12 12:09:21 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, rhettinger, jcea, chemacortes, mark.dickinson, Rhamphoryncus, LambertDW |
| 2009-02-12 12:09:20 | pitrou | link | issue5186 messages |
| 2009-02-12 12:09:20 | pitrou | create | |