From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Does anyone have a better scm_string_hash ? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:04:42 +0100 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20031119090440.GG11400@powergnu.laas.fr> References: <8765hnf308.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <1068823738.13123.54.camel@localhost> <20031114155148.GI16650@powergnu.laas.fr> <1069058032.1638.21.camel@localhost> <874qx3rogk.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87u153q8yk.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1069232961 6268 80.91.224.253 (19 Nov 2003 09:09:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:09:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 10:09:17 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AMOKq-0005Fc-00 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:09:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AMPHB-00064j-OW for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:09:33 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AMPGW-000618-Qw for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:08:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AMPEa-0005Uk-9G for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:07:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.93.0.15] (helo=laas.laas.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AMPDu-0004yK-Hq; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:06:10 -0500 Original-Received: by laas.laas.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAJ94g4p026308; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:04:43 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Marius Vollmer Mail-Followup-To: Marius Vollmer , guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87u153q8yk.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://ludo.humanoidz.org/ludovic.asc X-OS: GNU/Linux X-URL: http://ludo.humanoidz.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i [Guile enabled] X-Spam-Score: -5 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_MUTT X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:2407 gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3069 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3069 Hi, One day, 17 hours, 34 seconds ago, Marius Vollmer wrote: > Ok, I have installed the following hash function into 1.7. As a nice > side effect, guile seems to start a bit faster now. (Although the new > function does more work than the old. Talk about being too clever.) BTW, is this function also used for hashing symbol names? If so, then it must slightly improve performance! Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user