From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-15 20:00:28
on 3/14/01 7:52 AM, John Maddock at John_Maddock_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> I don't think there are "standard" CRC parameters. I picked the ones above
>> as examples because those were the examples used in the Internet papers I
>> read. If I use other types, I would have to compute the "123456789"
>> reference CRC result by hand as a check; which isn't easy. (I took about a
>> half-hour doing the 1-bit example that is in the test.)
> That isn't the impression that I got - chosing the wrong parameters can
> lead to something that's not as strong as it should be - but maybe some
> else can jump in here.
There are some parameter sets that work better than others. I was saying
that, within the restraints of quality, there is a lot of arbitrariness in
choosing CRC parameters. The CRC computers can only be concerned with
executing in a good manner. The user to generate, or find, good CRC
parameters on their own. I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong on this.
>> I hope you haven't reported that last bug. If so, take it back. It is not a
>> bug, because "<:" is a perfectly legitimate digraph! It represents the
>> opening square bracket ("[").
> Well well, you learn something new every day - just shows how few compilers
> support digraphs that only gcc (as far as I know) chokes over this.
My compiler supports digraphs. That's why I always space my template
parameters. (I discovered this the hard way when I tried to do "template X
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT mac DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk