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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada.Containers.Hash_Type -> 64 bit
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:55:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87bo4eu19k.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <cc9774c3-aeba-4da2-af55-2fb5b723c7c0@googlegroups.com>
 <5220afe9$0$6637$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <4c5570a9-cf04-4e04-a10f-5321e183d884@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="70a3d572c76b57e922c092418134871d";
 logging-data="21174"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fnZQSpHC7hdaE/mZ/jiAk"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X1+iLcEJQ9uUXrUYQ9r4LvQ2koc=
 sha1:u9y279PmGz4iSnz3h5PKxbNXBPs=
X-Original-Bytes: 2174
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183236
Date: 2013-08-31T02:55:51+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Peter Brooks writes on comp.lang.ada:
> 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.

Out of curiosity, why do you think you need a 64-bit hash_type? Do you
expect more than 4 billion objects in your table? If so, what is the
expected total size your hash table, and are you sure the address space
on your target platform is large enough to accommodate it?

Maybe this is an on-disk hash_table, IOW a content-addressed file system
you are designing?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.