From: admin@nospicedham.127.0.0.1
Resend
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:26:31 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> ;On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:12:13 +0100, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
>> Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>
>>>>> You inspired me to think of a horrible^w brilliant scheme, but this
>>>>> margin is too small to contain it.
>>>> Let me guess what you had in mind...
>>>> me too tried to get rid of the 2:1 at all and create the 4:3 decoder
>>>> with a 1:1 string and 'some' SMC modifications to fit into 041..07f.
>>
>>> Yup; a whole heap of mods to the first line to make it a b64 decoder.
>>
>> I may have reached the end of this story (or at least for now),
>> tried on:
>
> Darn! I was hoping for more inspiration! My attempt at a SMC 1st line B64
decoder is wallowing in fixup constant clashes.
>>
>> your short 50 byte:(can't pair 83,86 with one 3byte sub) 50+33+18+4+2=107
>> [string +11 pairs +6 single +push imm16 pop ax +sub AL,7A]
>>
>
> I'm using direct code for some ; e.g.
>
> ; sub al,'a'-'A'-26 ; a-z ; sub al,6
> sub al,0x5A
> sub al,0x5A
> sub al,0x52 ; whew! -6!
>
> as there's some room for expanding from 50 and 64; I dropped trying to keep
it to pure B64.
>
>
>> my larger 59 byte: avoided 80..A7 (ROR/SHR mem,imm) 59+27+15+4=105
>> [59 +9p +5s +4]
>>
>> another 59 byte: (ROR/SHR EDX) same modify needs as above.
>>
>> my shorter 54 byte: (needs an 8x then) 54+33+15+4+2=108
>> [54 +11p +5s +4 +2]
>>
>> So when I look back to the xor-sub-sub 2:1 and your 50 byte variant
>> and compare what's required for direct modify with the 2:1 algo, we
>> may not gain too much :)
>> __
>> wolfgang
>>
>
>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
