Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 18:31:15 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <86le3dlh24.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v2n88p$1nlcc$1@dont-email.me> <v2qm8m$2el55$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <v2qnue$2evlu$1@dont-email.me> <v2r9br$2hva2$1@dont-email.me> <86fru6gsqr.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v2sudq$2trh1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <8634q5hjsp.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v2vmhr$3ffjk$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <86le3wfsmd.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v2voe7$3fr50$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <86ed9ofq14.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240605005916.00001b33@yahoo.com> <v3vkvp$268b2$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <v4441o$3f3lt$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <v45hmd$3t9dq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:31:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd3c53775ad8bb542c9fab99347ae94b"; logging-data="4146135"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BmhQzqRcPZudoMlWL7ysM5/Sp4ZPioSI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rsWlaNes4RxIKL/STe28Ay6EMwA= sha1:mFTrlxOc9Ito302uSny0R698vgY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:385811

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On 09/06/2024 12:35, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>> uint64_t MichaelsHash( uint64_t key )
>> {
>>  __m128i xkey = _mm_set_epi64x( key, 42 );
>>  using bar_t = pair<uint64_t, uint64_t>;
>>  static bar_t const bars[8] =
>>  {
>>   { 0xBB09BBCC90B24BF2, 0x825C622FF2792A01 },
>>   { 0x94F0535CB06D4060, 0x939C756246DBFD1D },
>>   { 0x5B835E01A7E14CA1, 0xAC2BDAFC023CDD06 },
>>   { 0xE0B6A4735B774AEC, 0x9CAFB43E7DDE494C },
>>  };
>>  for( bar_t const &bar : bars )
>>   xkey = _mm_aesenc_si128( xkey, _mm_set_epi64x( bar.second,
>> bar.first ) );
>>  return xkey.m128i_u64[0];
>> }
>>
>> Now the code is about six times faster and I get a eight times
>> speedup over single-threaded processing with the same code.  Of
>> course the results are still the same.
>
> I have your permission to drop that in?

Note that this code was cribbed from Michael S.  If you
think it's important to ask permission, I think he is
the one you should be asking.

By the way, I thought you were looking for code that works
in standard C, and acceptable under C90 rules.  Have you
changed your mind about that?  The code above is a far
cry from C, let alone C90.