* Alan Eliasen:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> To provide some more background, most of us probably worry about
>> BigInteger performance in the 512 to 2048 bit range because that's the
>> range used for RSA cryptography (assuming that Java uses the Chinese
>> Reminder Theorem optimization for private
* Alan Eliasen:
> Alan Eliasen wrote:
>>Note that my optimizations for the pow() function give vastly better
>> performance at even small bit sizes for many operands, as they factor
>> out powers of 2 in the exponent and perform these very rapidly as
>> bit-shifts.
>
>Oops. I mean powers
Alan Eliasen wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> You give examples of the speedup for very large bignums, but you
>> don't say the size of numbers at which your approach becomes faster
>> than the current code. Of course any asymptotic improvement helps
>> with numbers that are half a million decimal
Alan Eliasen wrote:
>Note that my optimizations for the pow() function give vastly better
> performance at even small bit sizes for many operands, as they factor
> out powers of 2 in the exponent and perform these very rapidly as
> bit-shifts.
Oops. I mean powers of 2 in the *base*, of cou
Andrew Haley wrote:
> You give examples of the speedup for very large bignums, but you don't say
> the size of numbers at which your approach becomes faster than the current
> code. Of course any asymptotic improvement helps with numbers that are
> half a million decimal digits long, but where's t
Alan Eliasen wrote:
>From the queries I get, this is important to a lot of people. The
> performance of BigInteger can be improved by tens or hundreds or
> thousands of times (or even more in the case of certain arguments of
> pow()), and should be done to make Java a more viable platform for
Alan Eliasen wrote:
[snip]
Since I haven't heard of any progress on including my previous patch,
Sorry, still saturated with OpenJDK 6,
-Joe
