Re^10: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.

In your diagram above, draw two vertical pencil-lines, 64 bits apart, with at least 64 bits to the left of the leftmost line. (In other words, this is the second quadword in the value being sought.)

You total, utter, complete and unbashed, ^%$$%$^ TWONK!

There is no "second quadword in the value being sought", there are SIXTY FOUR second quadwords being sought; because the second quadword of the needle, could appear at any bit offset!

Thus, there is a 63 out of 64 chance, that no single quadword that appears in the needle, will appear anywhere -- 64-bit aligned -- in the haystack!

Even though the haystack might consist of millions of exact repetitions of the needle. They only need to be offset from the alignment by 1 bit (or 2 bits, or 3 bits or ... or 62-bits) and your REPNE SCASx instruction will simply never *&^&&%$ see them!

Please stop talking bollocks, and STFU.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^10: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^11: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.
by AppleFritter (Vicar) on Mar 25, 2015 at 20:06 UTC

Oh, brother! Please, calm down.

As much as I understand your frustration, could we not all try to act in a manner becoming a monk? Attack the message all you want, but please, let us not stoop to name-calling and insults. Remember the Spirit of the Monastery (which I'll reproduce here just because it's such an important and fundamental part of what makes Perlmonks what it is):

Spirit of the Monastery:

Perlmonks relies upon a spirit of fellowship which places the responsibility for brotherly conduct on the individual Monk.

Highly opinionated and informed contributions are encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among Monks, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the Monastery, or the basic joy of perl.

Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse conduct from the Monastery.

Such actions as taunting of other Monks, aggression in posts, belligerent intimidation, intentional disrespect, or other self-aggrandizing inconsiderate behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Monastery and must be avoided by all Monks.

Everybody gets angry at times; it's only natural. And from having read some of your and sundialsvc4's past clashes, I understand that the two of you are quite good at pushing each other's buttons, and I know that when you get upset, it's important to vent.

But please, don't do it here, in the Monastery. Blow off some steam elsewhere; step away from the computer, take a break. Take a walk, ride a bike. Beat up your punching bag, and then write a calm, level-headed reply that points out all everything that's factually wrong with what sundialsvc4 said; or alternatively simply ignore him entirely from now on.

Do it for the Monastery: do it to keep Perlmonks the respectful, civil, monkish place it is. Thank you for your understanding.

[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks