fleur VS wyhash

> There is also strange code like this loop https://github.com/hashlookup/fleur/blob/4ee2644a850381d928a... that jumped into my eye.

The line below that is worse:

strncpy(bloom_path , argv[optind], 128);

If you pass something >= 128 chars then bloom_path won't be null terminated. In general strncpy should never be used for copying strings.

For expansion on that: https://ramblings.implicit.net/c/2014/05/02/c-functions-that...

I recently switched to wyhash as it seems to have a good combination of speed and stability.

wyhash is a decent option for if you don't need a cryptographical quality hash

New Bare Hash Map: 2X-3X Speedup over SOTA\ (32 comments)

I feel like you’d want something a bit safer than “we don’t store the keys and just rely on the hash to be really good” [1], putting “please do not use this for serious tasks” in a comment embedded in the header file isn’t a clear enough warning.

It’s not clear to me that that probability of collision assumptions hold. It’s basically assuming that the hashing is perfect and distributes any inputs to the full 64-bit space with uniform probability. That’s the usual hash map / randomized algorithm hope, but does BigCrush or similar avalanche testing really prove that? (Presumably not, otherwise there wouldn’t be image attacks for things like md5).

[1] https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/blob/d2a305811972f391...