Anonymous user
Talk:CRC-32: Difference between revisions
→Size of example string
(Move latest topic to expected chronological order like all the others) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 252:
[[User:Robin48gx|Robin48gx]] ([[User talk:Robin48gx|talk]]) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:*The CRC-32 references given are defined on arbitrary sized strings, not limited to multiples of four.
:*Therefore, an implementation that only supported a multiple of four would not be a correct implementation of this task.
:*Performance issues are typically not the point of Rosetta Code examples. If an implementation is optimized for four byte multiples it's just an optimization irrelevant to the task itself.
:*The example input should therefore purposely ''not'' be a multiple of four.
::—[[User:dchapes|dchapes]] ([[User talk:dchapes|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/dchapes|contribs]]) 13:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::: Yes I take your points, but 32 and 64 bit words are the norm now, as is increasing integration of
::: common tasks (such as CRCs, multiple ADC readings, zero crossing for motor control). Making this string
::: a little longer makes it compatible with blinding fast hardware circuitry. I think its just keeping up with the times.
::: CRC-32 is often used to validate a block of data, not just transmission lines.:wq --[[User:Robin48gx|Robin48gx]] ([[User talk:Robin48gx|talk]])
::::Mind you, they are still shipping shed loads of 16 and 8 bit processors as they are smaller, cheaper and more power efficient ;-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Robin48gx, what you say is completely irrelevant for all the reasons I gave. —[[User:dchapes|dchapes]] ([[User talk:dchapes|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/dchapes|contribs]]) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
| |||