Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
