Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If files are identified by the path, then you can hash the >> path. If you use a good 64-bit hash the chance of collision >> is practically zero. That's good enough. > > Yes. And this solution is actually practical on pure 64bit > archs only. On 32bit and dual archs it's not practial, because > legacy apps (those compiled without largefile support)
First, we're not talking about legacy apps here. The applications we're talking about all have largefile support, as do the vast majority of other applications that I use daily. So if you come up with a solution that works well with largefile apps, and does something sort-of-reasonable for legacy apps, that's fine. Second, even 32-bit hashes are pretty good. The chances of their screwing up in practice are quite small, if you have good hash functions. > This is not a theoretical > possibility, I've had bug reports in this area. If it's for legacy apps, tell people to recompile with largefile support. That's much better than asking people to rewrite thousands of apps. (If you're getting lots of bug reports for legacy apps, then improve the quality of your 32-bit hash functions. :-) > Currently I have report of exactly 1 (one) application, > that breaks. Sorry, that's not sufficient evidence. I'm sure lots of other apps will break, but people won't necessarily know where to send the bug reports. There is a standard for this, a standard that reflects longstanding practice. Just conform to the standard, and you'll be fine. _______________________________________________ Bug-findutils mailing list Bug-findutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils