smhasher VS .NET Runtime

The algorithm passes all SMHasher quality tests and uses rounds of AES block cipher internally, so it is quite robust! For comparison XxH3, t1ha0 and many others don't pass SMHasher (while being slower).

Confirmed, I tested it. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher

There's lots of great hash functions out there: some are super fast, like xxhash and highly optimized, others are also super fast umash and based on interesting math ideas from finite fields^1, while maintaining high quality (according to SMHasher). Others are also fast and interesting (tabulation hash, that may sometimes be seemingly universal), one of the main originators of those ideas are Mikkel Thorup^2. Anyway, a couple of years ago I also tried my hand at building hashes and created a few that passed SMHasher (tifuhash ~ a floating point hash, beamsplitter - a seemingly-universal tabulation style hash, and this one discohash - a "more traditional" ARX-based design (addition rotation xor)^3 ).

0: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/xxh3.h

1: https://pvk.ca/Blog/2022/12/29/fixing-hashing-modulo-alpha-e...

2: https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01523

3: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/898.pdf https://crypto.polito.it/content/download/480/2850/file/docu...

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAKE_(hash_function)

Discohash (posted here) is the fastest one I made, it's simple and doesn't rely on any arch-specific optimizations or vector instructions (AVX etc ~ tho I suppose...they could be added? I'm definitely no expert in them, I barely get away with doing the C/C++ implementations!)

The main mixing round function is:

  mix(const int A) {

ubsan, asan, valgrind tests are missing. some do offer symbolic verification of the algo, but not the implementations.

See my https://github.com/rurban/smhasher#crypto paragraph, and

The spinach story reminds me a lot on the false recommendation of siphash for hash table DDOS prevention. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher#security

The authors came up in their widely cited paper with a proper solution to spread the random hash seed into the inner loop, vastly enhancing its security by avoiding trivial hash collision attacks. But a secure, slow hash function can never prevent from normal hash seed attacks, when the random seed is known somehow. esp. with dynamic languages it's trivial to get the seed externally.

Other trivial countermeasures must be used then, which also don't make hash tables 10x slower, keeping them practical.

This is the best, most comprehensive hash test suite I know of: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/

you might want to particularly look into murmur, spooky, and metrohash. I'm not exactly sure of what the tradeoffs involved are, or what your need is, but that site should serve as a good starting point at least.

Here is a good comparison table, as you can see, BLAKE can perform in secure way much faster than crc32, so my original point, - to use non weak hashes unless you really have a reason/requirement not to do so

smhasher is a great place to testing results for a massive number of hash algorithms.

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...