From: admin@nospicedham.127.0.0.1   
      
   On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 11:46:45 +0100, Terje Mathisen  wrote:   
      
   > Guys, I would love to see you come up with a better 2:1 encoding   
   > algorithm instead of the current micro-tweaking of the one I came up with!   
   >   
   > There has to be more than one way to achieve full byte coverage,   
   > XOR-SUB-SUB was more or less the first thing I came up with. :-)   
   >   
      
   I think I might save 4 bytes with a (shl (A xor B),1) xor B decoder,   
   but I'm uncertain (the jmpback address goes to an invalid 5F from 61 and the   
   other 2 are in the 2B buffer anyhow) and it seems a lot of effort to create a   
   whole new encoding table just for that.   
      
      
   > Alternatively we could look for a more limited algorithm which just   
   > covers what we need for the secondary Base64 decoder...   
   >   
   I'd need a reasonable range of opcodes; might as well go for a full coverage.   
      
   2:1 is quite wasteful (7+7=14 bits->8; wastes 6/16=0.375)  I've been toying   
   with a 3:2 (7+7+7=21->16 wastes 7/24=0.29166.), but can't see a simple   
   algorithm.   
      
   > Terje   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed, Humbug   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)