**NO, IT IS **__NOT__ “PUERILE TROLLING!”

Yes, I am unfortuantely *well* aware that BrowserUK and *(by my rough estimate of downvote counts)* about ±7 other Monks), “has a fan-club” But I *n-e-v-e-r* respond to __any__ post here as (as the NodeReaper just told me) “puerile trolling.”

Get over it.™ When the dust finally settled on this “interesting problem,” it turns out to be not interesting at all. The bit-strings being sought are apparently “millions of bits” long, in a buffer of “billions of bits.” That’s __not__ “an interesting problem.” That’s hardly a problem at all. And, that is exactly what I said.

If you have “a million bits,” then these bits __must__ align with some boundary that it is convenient for the microprocessor to handle most-efficiently ... and, for a 64-bit system, that boundary is “64 bits.” Therefore, there are exactly 64 possible “shifts” of that million-bit quantity before you __know__ exactly what value must occur in the second 64-bit word, or the 100,000th and so on. The “interesting *bit-*string problem has reduced itself a non-problem, precisely because you know that the “value being sought” is about 15,000 quadwords long, and you know the value that __must__ occur at any of those positions. If you search for the expected value for position #2, then directly test offsets #1,000 and #15,000 and find the expected answer ... you *have* your answer. All that remains is to confirm it.

Like it or not, and, “XP points or not,” I *have* handed you the best solution to this problem in this case. I’m not part of your Fan Club. In fact, I am probably the crazy-uncle. But, in the context of the problem as it eventually has been described, here __is__ your solution.

Now, please, with my blessings, go ahead and Reap this node, too. Hope that the Queen isn’t listening in.

Comment onRe: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.