> Indeed. (This was by the way mentioned on the list a couple of weeks > ago: http://www.mail-archive.com/ccache@lists.samba.org/msg00532.html)
To respond to Ramiro in that thread: > Joel, is there a way we can time how long each part of ccache takes? You can probably use xperf on Windows. > Do you want to work on this? That would be awesome! I currently don't > have much ccache time, and when I get some, I would like to work on > other things first. I have a few other projects to finish first, but I'll definitely add this to my (short, but non-empty) list of toolchain patches to write. It looks like there's serious performance to gain here. > Even the 64-bit version of murmurhash has way too high > collision rate. Ah, I didn't realize that murmurhash gave a single word as output. Yes, that's no good. > MD4 has been there from the start and neither Tridge or I have seen any > reason to switch it. MD5, SHA1 and other even more modern cryptograhic > hash functions are indeed stronger but also slower, and the increased > resistance against various crypto attacks doesn't seem necessary in a > tool like ccache. I'm also no expert on hash functions, but I'll e-mail around. -Justin _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache