On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:10:19AM -0800, I wrote: > Current evidence suggests that MD4 would be a good choice for a hash > algorithm. Thinking about it, I suspect that any CRC implementation that can't outrun MD5 by a wide margin is seriously sub-optimal. Can you post any more details about how the tests were run? I'd like to try it. Nathan Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Bruce Guenter
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Tom Lane
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Bruce Guenter
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Tom Lane
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing vers... Bruce Guenter
- [HACKERS] Re: CRC Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter