Anonymous user
Talk:CRC-32: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 39:
:::::: (responding to [[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]]) -- I agree, you should use built-in functions. But they do not always exist, for example when using the HI-TECH C-compiler or Microchips C compilers. And if I would use a built in function, it would produce unessecary large code. It would be better if you had a good understanding of the function and make your own. We're programming in different enviroments. --[[User:Spekkio|Spekkio]] 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::: And if I started writing my own from scratch it would produce unreasonably large (and slow) code. Delegating to a well-known library (which might or might not use special system instructions) is good. Most programmers — especially most on this site — don't use those compilers you mentioned; having a basic implementation is acceptable as a possible method, but it should not be the ''required'' method for something as well known as CRC32 which has many library implementations already. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 08:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I do not agree, I rewrite the CRC function every time. Sometimes it just needs to compute a CRC8 for 2 bytes. I feel this is not a good place for electronic engineers :) --[[User:Spekkio|Spekkio]] 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: (responding to [[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]]) -- Or if the language has a shortcut for CRC polynomials in general... (The implementation I posted uses a library routine which currently supports running any 33 bit polynomial, where the leading bit is set, against a sequence of character literals.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
| |||