CHK wishlist

[encode]

I'll test it. However, it's not that interesting since:
1. It's not a standard CRC (for compression world and SFV at least)
2. CRC is still I/O bounded. So even if you have super-fast SSD you will see no difference. Even MD4 is I/O bounded on my machine, thus CRC32 and MD4 timings are quite the same...
At the same time CRC64 (with unsigned __int64 math and x86 Borland compiler) is SLOWER than MD4. So I must do something with it.

[Bulat Ziganshin]

7zip's crc32 is 2gb/sec on the 2600k@4.6

[encode]

Your HDD/SSD can read at 2 GB/sec? %)

[encode]

Added some optimizations again. Now, MD4, MD5 and SHA1 are 100% unrolled.

"Copy hash" command copies hashes to clipboard in followed format:

ro.po, SHA1: 3B8C264D00DBD54445935E5F904FDBE3CD49C257
da.po, SHA1: 3F47C9C2F31A4C0E82608CA9491ED2473DCBFEAA
ca.po, SHA1: 898BE1443D4C60763BE07FC69390CA10F9B2B701
pt_BR.po, SHA1: 1127D28E85CFC27CCAD7ED9CE4863B2C44828003
ko.po, SHA1: 7831B7BD1ADC28B0F13072FE3EC2388B2527909D
ja.po, SHA1: 4AC9AB0D52D2CCC42600CDDCA8F93C7275143504
ChangeLog.pre-1-2, SHA1: CC86EB19CEC8B7C1176A43441680455A6F2768D4
configure, SHA1: 4E00693F5DDE4BAA9F57BB0106EF79853BD5E6B3
ChangeLog, SHA1: 63177461A99B8B8495084EC50802913DA906E815

It's done for web posting. Say, you uploaded a file, and you need to post a checksum:

ENWIK9, SHA1: 2996E86FB978F93CCA8F566CC56998923E7FE581

"Save as" dumps hash list in simple format that support most of hash checkers.

As example (gimp.txt attached to this post):

C:\>rhash -c --skip-ok gimp.txt

--( Verifying gimp.txt )--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything OK

Its funny, but RHASH easily checks/parses all TXT files produced by CHK with any hash (except CRC64). It even can distinguish MD4 from MD5. So I can easily validate my hash implementations...

Well, finally program is mostly done. It takes too long! But my goal was bring the highest quality product! The only and final thing is about icons - I'm not really satisfied with current variants. I'll keep searching...

[encode]