#              $file  $needle_bit_offset $needle_bit_length $repetitio
+ns
./bitstrstr test.dat           100000000               2000           
+10
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 1.6/10 = 0.16ms
[download]

Update:

$ for i in 16 20 30 40 60 100 200 400 1000 3000 10000; do echo $i; ./b
+itstrstr test.dat 100000000 $i 10; done
16
needle found at 164016, expected at 100000000 in 1.1/10 = 0.11ms
20
needle found at 949378, expected at 100000000 in 1.8/10 = 0.18ms
30
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 1018.4/10 = 101.84
+ms
40
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 38/10 = 3.8ms
60
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 924.1/10 = 92.41ms
100
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 12/10 = 1.2ms
200
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 6.2/10 = 0.62ms
400
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 3.7/10 = 0.37ms
1000
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 2.3/10 = 0.23ms
3000
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 0.9/10 = 0.09ms
10000
needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 0.4/10 = 0.04ms
[download]

And what do the numbers look like if the offset is 99999997 and the length 2003?

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

$ for i in 99999996 99999997 99999998 99999999; do for j in 1999 2001 
+2002 2003 2004; do echo $i $j; ./bitstrstr test.dat $i $j 100; done; 
+done
99999996 1999
needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms
99999996 2001
needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms
99999996 2002
needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.6/100 = 0.116ms
99999996 2003
needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 12.1/100 = 0.121ms
99999996 2004
needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 12/100 = 0.12ms
99999997 1999
needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.5/100 = 0.115ms
99999997 2001
needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 13.2/100 = 0.132ms
99999997 2002
needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.5/100 = 0.115ms
99999997 2003
needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.8/100 = 0.118ms
99999997 2004
needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.6/100 = 0.116ms
99999998 1999
needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 911.9/100 = 9.119ms
99999998 2001
needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 12.2/100 = 0.122ms
99999998 2002
needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 13.2/100 = 0.132ms
99999998 2003
needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms
99999998 2004
needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 12.6/100 = 0.126ms
99999999 1999
needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12/100 = 0.12ms
99999999 2001
needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 912.1/100 = 9.121ms
99999999 2002
needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.5/100 = 0.125ms
99999999 2003
needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.6/100 = 0.126ms
99999999 2004
needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.2/100 = 0.122ms
[download]