From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9990: valgrind warning in add_row_entry Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:49:46 +0200 Message-ID: <83aa7xe0n9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83k47ailf0.fsf@gnu.org> <83zkg2fzgt.fsf@gnu.org> <83vcqqfy5h.fsf@gnu.org> <83k475fsxp.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321379557 12521 80.91.229.12 (15 Nov 2011 17:52:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9990@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu , Richard Stallman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 15 18:52:32 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBQ-000677-AV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:52:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45895 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBP-0002au-SW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38080) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBJ-0002Yy-W6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBF-00015U-Vb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:25 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBF-00015Q-Ls for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBt-0006Xd-Qn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:53:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9990 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9990-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9990.132137955525033 (code B ref 9990); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:53:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9990) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 17:52:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBS-0006Vb-Q2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQNBL-0006Ui-Ny for 9990@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:33 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LUP00M00QRC8D00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 9990@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:51:41 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.184.15]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LUP00HA6QY3C0I1@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:51:39 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:53:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53938 Archived-At: > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Cc: 9990@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:21:56 -0500 > > BTW, why is the hash only using 28 bits instead of the full 32? Won't > it get a bit more precision if using 32? I don't know. I suspect this is simply history inherited from a similar (but not identical -- why?) code in line_hash_code, which also uses 28 bits. Richard, do you remember by chance why only 28 bits are used?