Iteration Order Differs on Arm64 Architecture about parallel-hashmap

[fegennari]

Okay, thank you for looking into this. I'll continue to work around this using a sort on hashval, since this is only a problem with testing. It sounds like iteration order isn't guaranteed, so this isn't a bug. You can close this issue.

[greg7mdp]

Hum, I think that in general, tests should not depend on the order of iteration in any hash map. The iteration order is definitely not a provided guarantee, and indeed some containers (like the original abseil) make specific efforts to randomize iteration order (from here: "While std::unordered_map makes no guarantees about iteration order, many implementations happen to have a deterministic order based on the keys and their insert order. This is not true of absl::flat_hash_map and absl::node_hash_map. Thus, converting from std::unordered_map to absl::flat_hash_map can expose latent bugs where the code incorrectly depends on iteration order.").

Out of curiosity, what is the key type and hash function you are using for these containers?

[fegennari]

It's not really a bug, I'm mostly curious why the order differs. The tests that fail are ones that write some hash map contents out to disk and compare with golden results. My workaround has been to canonically sort the results for both the golden and actual run, and then everything agrees. As far as I can tell, gcc's hash_map, unordered_map, and google::sparse_hash_map agree across architectures.

The failing tests are all ones that unique polygon clips and write out the results. The key is a set of polygons (XY vertices) and the hash used is CityHash from here: https://github.com/google/cityhash. The hashes themselves agree - I printed them out. Only the iteration order disagrees. And it's only some minor changes, such as an isolated key jumping a few dozen spots in the order.

[greg7mdp]

Hum, not sure. My best guess as to the difference would be that maybe it uses different versions of phmap_mix<8> in phmap_utils.h (mixing is done after the hash computation), although in that case I would expect most keys to hash differently. If __int128 is supported on both platforms, and always provides the same results, then maybe there is a difference between the GroupSse2Impl (used on i86_64) and the GroupPortableImpl (used on ARM).