--- /dev/null
+/*
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+lookup3.c, by Bob Jenkins, May 2006, Public Domain.
+
+These are functions for producing 32-bit hashes for hash table lookup.
+hashword(), hashlittle(), hashlittle2(), hashbig(), mix(), and final()
+are externally useful functions. Routines to test the hash are included
+if SELF_TEST is defined. You can use this free for any purpose. It's in
+the public domain. It has no warranty.
+
+You probably want to use hashlittle(). hashlittle() and hashbig()
+hash byte arrays. hashlittle() is is faster than hashbig() on
+little-endian machines. Intel and AMD are little-endian machines.
+On second thought, you probably want hashlittle2(), which is identical to
+hashlittle() except it returns two 32-bit hashes for the price of one.
+You could implement hashbig2() if you wanted but I haven't bothered here.
+
+If you want to find a hash of, say, exactly 7 integers, do
+ a = i1; b = i2; c = i3;
+ mix(a,b,c);
+ a += i4; b += i5; c += i6;
+ mix(a,b,c);
+ a += i7;
+ final(a,b,c);
+then use c as the hash value. If you have a variable length array of
+4-byte integers to hash, use hashword(). If you have a byte array (like
+a character string), use hashlittle(). If you have several byte arrays, or
+a mix of things, see the comments above hashlittle().
+
+Why is this so big? I read 12 bytes at a time into 3 4-byte integers,
+then mix those integers. This is fast (you can do a lot more thorough
+mixing with 12*3 instructions on 3 integers than you can with 3 instructions
+on 1 byte), but shoehorning those bytes into integers efficiently is messy.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+*/
+
+/*
+ * Only minimal parts kept, see http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html for
+ * full file and great info.
+ */
+
+#ifndef LOOKUP_H
+#define LOOKUP_H
+
+#include <stdint.h> /* defines uint32_t etc */
+
+
+#define rot(x,k) (((x)<<(k)) | ((x)>>(32-(k))))
+
+
+/*
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+mix -- mix 3 32-bit values reversibly.
+
+This is reversible, so any information in (a,b,c) before mix() is
+still in (a,b,c) after mix().
+
+If four pairs of (a,b,c) inputs are run through mix(), or through
+mix() in reverse, there are at least 32 bits of the output that
+are sometimes the same for one pair and different for another pair.
+This was tested for:
+* pairs that differed by one bit, by two bits, in any combination
+ of top bits of (a,b,c), or in any combination of bottom bits of
+ (a,b,c).
+* "differ" is defined as +, -, ^, or ~^. For + and -, I transformed
+ the output delta to a Gray code (a^(a>>1)) so a string of 1's (as
+ is commonly produced by subtraction) look like a single 1-bit
+ difference.
+* the base values were pseudorandom, all zero but one bit set, or
+ all zero plus a counter that starts at zero.
+
+Some k values for my "a-=c; a^=rot(c,k); c+=b;" arrangement that
+satisfy this are
+ 4 6 8 16 19 4
+ 9 15 3 18 27 15
+ 14 9 3 7 17 3
+Well, "9 15 3 18 27 15" didn't quite get 32 bits diffing
+for "differ" defined as + with a one-bit base and a two-bit delta. I
+used http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/avalanche.html to choose
+the operations, constants, and arrangements of the variables.
+
+This does not achieve avalanche. There are input bits of (a,b,c)
+that fail to affect some output bits of (a,b,c), especially of a. The
+most thoroughly mixed value is c, but it doesn't really even achieve
+avalanche in c.
+
+This allows some parallelism. Read-after-writes are good at doubling
+the number of bits affected, so the goal of mixing pulls in the opposite
+direction as the goal of parallelism. I did what I could. Rotates
+seem to cost as much as shifts on every machine I could lay my hands
+on, and rotates are much kinder to the top and bottom bits, so I used
+rotates.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+*/
+#define mix(a,b,c) \
+{ \
+ a -= c; a ^= rot(c, 4); c += b; \
+ b -= a; b ^= rot(a, 6); a += c; \
+ c -= b; c ^= rot(b, 8); b += a; \
+ a -= c; a ^= rot(c,16); c += b; \
+ b -= a; b ^= rot(a,19); a += c; \
+ c -= b; c ^= rot(b, 4); b += a; \
+}
+
+
+/*
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+final -- final mixing of 3 32-bit values (a,b,c) into c
+
+Pairs of (a,b,c) values differing in only a few bits will usually
+produce values of c that look totally different. This was tested for
+* pairs that differed by one bit, by two bits, in any combination
+ of top bits of (a,b,c), or in any combination of bottom bits of
+ (a,b,c).
+* "differ" is defined as +, -, ^, or ~^. For + and -, I transformed
+ the output delta to a Gray code (a^(a>>1)) so a string of 1's (as
+ is commonly produced by subtraction) look like a single 1-bit
+ difference.
+* the base values were pseudorandom, all zero but one bit set, or
+ all zero plus a counter that starts at zero.
+
+These constants passed:
+ 14 11 25 16 4 14 24
+ 12 14 25 16 4 14 24
+and these came close:
+ 4 8 15 26 3 22 24
+ 10 8 15 26 3 22 24
+ 11 8 15 26 3 22 24
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+*/
+#define final(a,b,c) \
+{ \
+ c ^= b; c -= rot(b,14); \
+ a ^= c; a -= rot(c,11); \
+ b ^= a; b -= rot(a,25); \
+ c ^= b; c -= rot(b,16); \
+ a ^= c; a -= rot(c,4); \
+ b ^= a; b -= rot(a,14); \
+ c ^= b; c -= rot(b,24); \
+}
+
+
+#endif
projects / lttv.git / blobdiff