On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:15:31AM -0000, danielsh_at_apache.org wrote:
> > Author: danielsh
> > Date: Mon Jun 24 10:15:31 2013
> > New Revision: 1495978
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1495978
> > Log:
> > Silence a compiler warning.
> >
> > * subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c
> > (cache_lookup): Only declare FACTOR when it is used.
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c
> >
> > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c
> > URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c?rev=1495978&r1=1495977&r2=1495978&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c (original)
> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c Mon Jun 24 10:15:31
> 2013
> > @@ -342,8 +342,10 @@ cache_lookup( fs_fs_dag_cache_t *cache
> > apr_size_t path_len = strlen(path);
> > apr_uint32_t hash_value = (apr_uint32_t)revision;
> >
> > +#if SVN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS_IS_OK
> > /* "randomizing" / distributing factor used in our hash function */
> > const apr_uint32_t factor = 0xd1f3da69;
> > +#endif
> >
>
> Is this the right fix? Right now, the !SVN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS_IS_OK hash
> function is just (x[n] + 33^1 x[n-1] + ... + 33^(n-1) x[1] + 33^n x[0]).
>
Yep. That is good enough for the access patterns
the we see here: tree walks.
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2013-06-24 12:28:43 CEST