tim wrote: > If "not work" means "may not return the same answer as when a long = does have > exactly 32 bits", then yes, it's certain not to work. Else I don't = know -- > I don't understand the (undocumented) postconditions (=3D=3D what does = "work" > mean, exactly?) for these functions. he's using the hash function to look things up in a static table... fwiw, "ucnhash" might be slightly obsolete (see my "unicodenames" patch for a smaller replacement). as far as I can tell, my hash function = should work on a 64-bit machine... ...on the other hand, it currently assumes that an "int" is at least 32 = bits. should I change this? do we still pretend to support 16-bit computers? </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4