Author lemburg
Recipients Arfrever, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, jcea, lemburg, pitrou, terry.reedy, v+python, vstinner
Date 2012-01-06.17:03:08
SpamBayes Score 4.79271e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4F072943.8090603@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <CAMpsgwbMEe4zmsbkDL-iZGrErut7g-bsYamc5RHWkTuBWy8_CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content
STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
> 
> hash-attack.patch does never decrement the collision counter.

Why should it ? It's only used as local variable in the lookup function.

Note that the limit only triggers on a per-key basis. It's not
a limit on the total number of collisions in the table, so you don't
need to keep the number of collisions stored on the object.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-06 17:03:08lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, gvanrossum, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, Arfrever, v+python, alex, dmalcolm, Mark.Shannon, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, PaulMcMillan
2012-01-06 17:03:08lemburglinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-06 17:03:08lemburgcreate