Improve the OOP ABI

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, January 22, 2024 7:33:33 PM MST Siarhei Siamashka via Digitalmars-d 
wrote:
> On Monday, 22 January 2024 at 23:31:16 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 January 2024 at 22:44:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 1/22/2024 1:11 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
> >>> Blake3 might be worth a look.  It's reportedly faster and
> >>> stronger than md5.
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3
> >>
> >> Thanks for the tip. I don't know how to evaluate a hash
> >> function for uniqueness.
> >
> > Blake is > 128 bits, so I don't think there is anything really
> > interesting there anyways.
>
> It's probably possible to take just the first (or last) 128 bits
> of BLAKE3 and the result might have better properties than MD5
> (considering that MD5 is broken). There are some answers related
> to "truncated hash" on the Internet about SHA-256, but any
> cryptographically secure hash is likely to be similar in this
> aspect:
> https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/161/should-i-use-the-first-or-las
> t-bits-from-a-sha-256-hash/163#163

Why on earth would we care if the hash is secure in this context? We
obviously care about the likelihood of collisions, and if that's high enough
(which does not seem to be the case for md5), then the hash is unsuitable
for comparing class names, but why would crytographic security matter when
comparing class names in the compiler?

- Jonathan M Davis