"Raif S. Naffah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 29 March 2003 18:27, Brian Jones wrote: > > Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>>>> "Brian" == Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Brian> There are still some getInstance problems with some of the > > > Brian> things I recently checked in though a check through my Mauve > > > Brian> results appears to indicate nothing terribly new here. > > > > > > Are these getInstance problems revealed by Mauve? > > > Or did you find them some other way? > > > I'd like to put all this java.security stuff into libgcj, but I'd > > > also prefer to wait if there is a regression that will be ironed > > > out soon... > > > > I looked at the Mauve results before and after and essentially the > > same getInstance problems and I don't know much about it other than > > that. It could just be because I don't have gnu-crypto configured > > with the mauve testing. Need to investigate. > > the Mauve tests for the getInstance() methods (at least those i added > recently) do not rely/depend on GNU Crypto. all the testcases, install > their own, temporary, providers. > > to test the patch i submitted earlier, i used my local copy of gcc, to > which i applied the same patch. all the security related Mauve tests > passed.
It's broken under Kissme/Classpath. Brian -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
