Re: Re: Adler-32 Checksum

James,

I couldn't agree with you more here. Let's just stick with something 
that is well known and widely accepted.

regards,
-Qiaobing

James Carlson wrote:

> Thomas Dreibholz writes:
> 
>>On Thursday 30 June 2005 17:06, Peter Lei wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure what your concern is here.  The Internet checksum
>>>is just the ones's complement of (one's complement sum + carry).
>>>That's two additional steps over a simple XOR sum.
>>
>>XOR is computationally cheaper than addition. It works bit-wise and does not 
>>need a carry.
> 
> 
> Was that meant as a serious comment?  I don't think that sort of
> consideration applies to _any_ system built in the past 40 years or
> so.
> 
> I'd think that choosing a commonly-implemented (and thus likely-to-
> be-bug-free and well-supported and well-understood) algorithm would
> trump any concern about bit twiddling at this level.
> 
> I suspect that most people who deal with TCP/IP already have a handy,
> well-tested in_cksum() function available.
>