From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.124.131 with SMTP id u3mr10542382qar.5.1377877432877; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.70.170 with SMTP id n10mr36170qeu.22.1377877432852; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!news.glorb.com!fx3no6201452qab.0!news-out.google.com!he10ni3964qab.0!nntp.google.com!fx3no6201444qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5220afe9$0$6637$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=105.236.92.204; posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.236.92.204 References: <5220afe9$0$6637$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4c5570a9-cf04-4e04-a10f-5321e183d884@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada.Containers.Hash_Type -> 64 bit From: Peter Brooks Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:43:52 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 2062 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183226 Date: 2013-08-30T08:43:52-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, 30 August 2013 16:45:57 UTC+2, G.B. wrote: > On 30.08.13 16:32, Peter Brooks wrote: > > > Ada.Strings.Hash defines Ada.Containers.Hash_Type as 32 bits long. How can I increase it to 64 bits? > > > > > I suspect you can't since Hash_Type is implementation-defined. > (Implying that you'd have to change, or at least check, the > implementation of everything involving Hash_Type.) > > A quirky workaround might be to use two hash tables, > one for the upper quadword, and one for the lower. > Thank you! That's a pity, but there we are. It looks as if I'll have to re-write it.