On 06/04/17 21:39, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
I'd like to get a review for this performance change to use the existing CounterMode parallelized intrinsic instead of GCTR's own version. The two classes were nearly identical except for the doFinal() method which doesn't belong in CounterMode.java. I could have been more aggressive with this change, but I'm looking to get this into 9, so I stayed away from completely merging GCTR into CounterMode in case of incompatibilities. All tests security and hotspot tests pass. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ascarpino/8177784/webrev/
This change looks good to me. Trivially, the class-level comment in GCTR should be updated ( it refers to removed fields ). Also, CounterMode.counter could be protected ( rather than package-private ). -Chris.
