03.10.13 23:47, Guido van Rossum написав(ла):
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org
<mailto:christ...@python.org>> wrote:
Am 03.10.2013 21:45, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> But fixing that shouldn't need all the extra stuff you're
> proposing.
I have proposed some of the extra stuff for more flexibility, the rest
is for testing and debugging.
Hm, I don't think we need more infrastructure for this. As Antoine said,
if you're hacking on this you might as well edit the source.
What we could do is to move all hash-related stuff into separated .c and
.h files.
> SipHash: more secure and about same speed on most systems
>
> Same speed as what?
Same speed as the current algorithm in Python 3.3 and earlier.
OK, then I have no objection to switching to it, *if* the security issue
is really worth fixing. Otherwise it would be better to look for a hash
that is *faster*, given your assertion that the current hash is inefficient.
Actually same speed only for UCS1 string. For UCS2 and UCS4 strings it
can be 5x to 10x slower [1]. But I don't known how it affects real programs.
[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue14621#msg175048
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
