Why are CRC Polynomials given as Normal, Reversed, etc.?









up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I'm learning about CRCs, and search engines and SO turn up nothing on this....



Why do we have "Normal" and "Reversed" and "Reciprocal" Polynomials? Does one favor Big Endian, Little Endian, or something else?










share|improve this question

























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    I'm learning about CRCs, and search engines and SO turn up nothing on this....



    Why do we have "Normal" and "Reversed" and "Reciprocal" Polynomials? Does one favor Big Endian, Little Endian, or something else?










    share|improve this question























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      I'm learning about CRCs, and search engines and SO turn up nothing on this....



      Why do we have "Normal" and "Reversed" and "Reciprocal" Polynomials? Does one favor Big Endian, Little Endian, or something else?










      share|improve this question













      I'm learning about CRCs, and search engines and SO turn up nothing on this....



      Why do we have "Normal" and "Reversed" and "Reciprocal" Polynomials? Does one favor Big Endian, Little Endian, or something else?







      crc






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jan 26 '17 at 16:48









      someprogrammer

      13211




      13211






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          The classic definition of a CRC would use a non-reflected polynomial, which shifts the CRC left. If the word size being used for the calculation is larger than the CRC, then you would need an operation at the end to clear the high bits that were shifted into (e.g. & 0xffff for a 16-bit CRC).



          You can flip the whole thing, use a reflected polynomial, and shift right instead of left. That gives the same CRC properties, but the bits from the message are effectively operated on from least to most significant bit, instead of most to least significant bit. Since you are shifting right, the extraneous bits get dropped off the bottom into oblivion, and there is no need for the additional operation. This may have been one of the early motivations to use a very slightly faster and more compact implementation.



          Sometimes the specification from the original hardware is that the bits are processed from least to most significant, so then you have to use the reflected version.



          No, none of this favors little or big endian. Either kind of CRC can be computed just as easily in little-endian or big-endian architectures.






          share|improve this answer






















            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            );
            );
            , "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f41878655%2fwhy-are-crc-polynomials-given-as-normal-reversed-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted










            The classic definition of a CRC would use a non-reflected polynomial, which shifts the CRC left. If the word size being used for the calculation is larger than the CRC, then you would need an operation at the end to clear the high bits that were shifted into (e.g. & 0xffff for a 16-bit CRC).



            You can flip the whole thing, use a reflected polynomial, and shift right instead of left. That gives the same CRC properties, but the bits from the message are effectively operated on from least to most significant bit, instead of most to least significant bit. Since you are shifting right, the extraneous bits get dropped off the bottom into oblivion, and there is no need for the additional operation. This may have been one of the early motivations to use a very slightly faster and more compact implementation.



            Sometimes the specification from the original hardware is that the bits are processed from least to most significant, so then you have to use the reflected version.



            No, none of this favors little or big endian. Either kind of CRC can be computed just as easily in little-endian or big-endian architectures.






            share|improve this answer


























              up vote
              4
              down vote



              accepted










              The classic definition of a CRC would use a non-reflected polynomial, which shifts the CRC left. If the word size being used for the calculation is larger than the CRC, then you would need an operation at the end to clear the high bits that were shifted into (e.g. & 0xffff for a 16-bit CRC).



              You can flip the whole thing, use a reflected polynomial, and shift right instead of left. That gives the same CRC properties, but the bits from the message are effectively operated on from least to most significant bit, instead of most to least significant bit. Since you are shifting right, the extraneous bits get dropped off the bottom into oblivion, and there is no need for the additional operation. This may have been one of the early motivations to use a very slightly faster and more compact implementation.



              Sometimes the specification from the original hardware is that the bits are processed from least to most significant, so then you have to use the reflected version.



              No, none of this favors little or big endian. Either kind of CRC can be computed just as easily in little-endian or big-endian architectures.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted






                The classic definition of a CRC would use a non-reflected polynomial, which shifts the CRC left. If the word size being used for the calculation is larger than the CRC, then you would need an operation at the end to clear the high bits that were shifted into (e.g. & 0xffff for a 16-bit CRC).



                You can flip the whole thing, use a reflected polynomial, and shift right instead of left. That gives the same CRC properties, but the bits from the message are effectively operated on from least to most significant bit, instead of most to least significant bit. Since you are shifting right, the extraneous bits get dropped off the bottom into oblivion, and there is no need for the additional operation. This may have been one of the early motivations to use a very slightly faster and more compact implementation.



                Sometimes the specification from the original hardware is that the bits are processed from least to most significant, so then you have to use the reflected version.



                No, none of this favors little or big endian. Either kind of CRC can be computed just as easily in little-endian or big-endian architectures.






                share|improve this answer














                The classic definition of a CRC would use a non-reflected polynomial, which shifts the CRC left. If the word size being used for the calculation is larger than the CRC, then you would need an operation at the end to clear the high bits that were shifted into (e.g. & 0xffff for a 16-bit CRC).



                You can flip the whole thing, use a reflected polynomial, and shift right instead of left. That gives the same CRC properties, but the bits from the message are effectively operated on from least to most significant bit, instead of most to least significant bit. Since you are shifting right, the extraneous bits get dropped off the bottom into oblivion, and there is no need for the additional operation. This may have been one of the early motivations to use a very slightly faster and more compact implementation.



                Sometimes the specification from the original hardware is that the bits are processed from least to most significant, so then you have to use the reflected version.



                No, none of this favors little or big endian. Either kind of CRC can be computed just as easily in little-endian or big-endian architectures.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Nov 11 at 21:07

























                answered Jan 26 '17 at 17:32









                Mark Adler

                57k760108




                57k760108



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f41878655%2fwhy-are-crc-polynomials-given-as-normal-reversed-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    What does pagestruct do in Eviews?

                    Dutch intervention in Lombok and Karangasem

                    Channel Islands