This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [freenet-tech] Technology / Features
- From: Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>
- To: Brian Jones <cbj at gnu dot org>
- Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, Gran Thyni <goran at kirra dot net>, tech at freenetproject dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 25 Feb 2002 12:27:22 -0800
- Subject: Re: [freenet-tech] Technology / Features
- Organization: Myself
- References: <20020221022416.GG231@znex> <20020222010936.GJ231@znex> <20020222125306.GA8575@amphibian.dyndns.org> <200202242208.g1OM82k28365@sentinel.bobich.ne\t> <20020225083912.GC668@kirra.net> <86664lpiwj.fsf@megacz.com> <87heo5s9oi.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <m3adtxbdfb.fsf@lyta.haphazard.org>
Brian Jones <cbj@gnu.org> writes:
> Adam could be referring to something else.
Actually that was back when I was trying to use the Cryptix provider
under GCJ in order to use PureTLS. I ran into a sieres of bugs which
led me to believe that whoever wrote libgcj's java.security.* had
never tested it with anything other than the default provider.
At that point I became immensely frustrated and embarked on a five-day
coding binge during which I implemented SSLv3 from the spec, using the
SHA1/MD5/RSA/RC4/x509 primitives in BouncyCastle, which thankfully
doesn't require you to go through the java.security.* nonsense to do
something as simple as 'RSA-decrypt this byte[] using this pair of
java.math.BigInteger's as the key'.
I'm still totally blown away by the performance difference between
HotSpot and GCJ on stuff like this... I can only assume that this yet
another benefit of using the GCC optimizer/backends. I don't think I
was even using -O2 or -fno-bounds-check.
- a
--
"If I put copyrighted material into the 'chewy nougat center', I can
claim the crunchy chocolate coating is an 'Access Control
Mechanism'." --lynx_user_abroad
Why Windows NT/2k/XP is unreliable: www.zappadoodle.com