On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: > On 09/16/2013 02:11 PM, Guy Steele wrote: > >> Okay, as long as we're obsessing: the code defends against the hardware >> address being longer than 8 bytes. > > This was to protect ourselves from the impact of this code being used in some > alternative universe in which hardware addresses are not always 48bits. > But you are right that we could do a little better. > >> So how about this code? >> ... >> h = (h << 16) ^ (bs[i] << 8) ^ bs[n-1-i]; > > On first glance the sign extension of byte to long conversion > makes this suspicious, but I see that it cannot hurt. > So, sure; thanks. > > Here's the full current version, including another minor tweak. > (Paul: I'm committing to our CVS.) >
OK, i will sync this and SplittableRandom this week, and probably switch myself to a reviewer to speed this up. Paul.
