Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well, I now have the full algorithm working. :-P
> 
>> Or at least, it seems to work for messages shorter than 52 bytes anyway. 
> 
>   Then it's not a full working algorithm, is it?-)

Ah-HAH! One more bug, annihilated. >:-)

In the midst of a complex padding algorithm, I forgot to add on the 
running count of the number of bytes processed. The "size" figure 
appended onto the end of the bitstream was always the size of the last 
block, not the whole message. (IOW, message size mod 512.) Oops!

The program now appears to give correct results for every case I've 
tried. (I.e., not very many. However, I threw a 2 MB file at it, and it 
gave me the right answer. This indicates that it's not *completely* 
broken...)

And yes, it's just a tad slower than C. ( = exaggeration.)

Post a reply to this message