add t1ha hash (fastest, pass all tests) about smhasher HOT 13 CLOSED

Thanks, looks good

from smhasher.

Merged, thanks. I just had no room for your README.md docs. Maybe put them into the header.

from smhasher.

Sorry, but I just updated t1ha.
This is a fairly important change.

In general, I was switched to little bit faster 'mux' version (with 64x64 mul) and to C from C++.
But also fixes a possibility of crossing page boundary at the end of key, in case it was unaligned.
This is not a flaw in case using t1ha in the 1Hippeus project, but seriously bug for general hash function.

Please merge again.

from smhasher.

Can you add the t1ha_mux variant also?
This is now missing from your smhasher-rurban.t1ha branch

from smhasher.

It was decided to leave only the "mux" variant, at the same time renaming it into "t1ha".
Maybe it's not the best solution, but in general should be better.

I think, I should clarify:

• The 'mux' version (which now called as main "t1ha") is faster for small keys, but same speed for large keys.
• The old version (originally called 1Hippeus Hash) was dropped, because it should be fixed/refined against flaw that I noted.
• This should not be mislead about "t1ha" name, because it just published as "Positive Hash" and it have not been used before.

https://github.com/leo-yuriev/t1ha/blob/smhasher-rurban.t1ha/main.cpp#L184

from smhasher.

But this would not work on 32bit then. No plan for a 32bit version?

from smhasher.

It should already work. More over, much faster than mum-hash.

I implemented the required multiplication for the absence of __int128.

https://github.com/leo-yuriev/t1ha/blob/smhasher-rurban.t1ha/t1ha.c#L149

from smhasher.

Great, updating and testing it now

from smhasher.

This looks like a bug:

add_with_carry(uint64_t *sum, uint64_t addend) {
  *sum += addend;
  return sum < addend;
}

=>
return *sum < addend;

and it is also invalid C++ with -fpermissive

from smhasher.

Oops. Sure this is bug. Just lost de-referense while conversion from C++ to C.

It is question for QA. How it passes the tests?

from smhasher.

I was QA. I didn't pass :)

in smhasher it just added randomly a 0 or 1 to it, which apparently qualifies as good enough.

on 32bit some constants are also too long and are capped. e.g. 2166136261 would need a 2166136261L there. but this is in a different function.

from smhasher.

;)

+1

I am on the road approximately two hours.

from smhasher.

Thank!

from smhasher.