Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make sure that the hash of referenced specialize types is the same #213

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 1, 2024

Conversation

eaufavor
Copy link
Contributor

@eaufavor eaufavor commented Feb 28, 2024

In general users would expect the hash of &T is the same as the hash of T. This is the case in ahash unless the "specialize" feature is used.

This change is a stop gap to make sure that the hash of the specialized types is the same whether reference is used or not.

Note that this change still doesn't address doubly referenced types like &&u64. But hopefully it already covers most cases.

Fixes #214

In general users would expect the hash of &T is the same as the hash of
T. This is the case in ahash unless the "specialize" feature is used.

This change is a stop gap to make sure that the hash of the specialized
types is the same whether reference is used or not.

Note that this change still doesn't address doubly referenced types
like &&u64. But hopefully it already covers most cases.
@tkaitchuck
Copy link
Owner

I am aware of this limitation, and am planning to resolve it in a more permanent way by having the hasher rather then the method typed to the item being hashed. This is obviously a API breaking change, so it will need to be a major release.

@tkaitchuck
Copy link
Owner

This is fine as a temporary measure, but it should probably also cover &&str and &String.

@tkaitchuck tkaitchuck self-requested a review February 29, 2024 19:25
@tkaitchuck tkaitchuck merged commit e7481cd into tkaitchuck:master Mar 1, 2024
9 checks passed
tkaitchuck added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2024
Signed-off-by: Tom Kaitchuck <Tom.Kaitchuck@gmail.com>
tkaitchuck added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2024
* Make RandomState typed to the type to be hashed
* Add test from #213
* All smhasher tests pass

Signed-off-by: Tom Kaitchuck <Tom.Kaitchuck@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Hashing &T yields different results compared to T
2 participants