On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:05:51 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:05:51 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:23:45 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>
> Fuzzing test expanded to also include ByteBuffer payloads.
>
> Performance is now matched:
>
>
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:23:45 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 18:22:00 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Volodymyr Paprotski has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove comment
>
> @valeriepeng Could you please take a look at this PR?
@sviswa7 I will be looking at t
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:23:45 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:23:45 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:23:45 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
>> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
>> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>>
>> Fuzzing test expanded to also
> There is now an intrinsic for Poly1305, which is only enabled on the
> `engineUpdate([]byte)` path. This PR adds intrinsic support
> `engineUpdate(ByteBuffer)` (when the bytebuffer `hasArray`).
>
> Fuzzing test expanded to also include ByteBuffer payloads.
>
> Performance is now matched:
>
>
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 01:16:28 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Volodymyr Paprotski has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove comment
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/Poly1305.java line 260:
>
>> 258
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:42:01 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Volodymyr Paprotski has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove comment
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/Poly1305.java line 268:
>
>> 266:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 18:41:42 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/Poly1305.java line 268:
>>
>>> 266: } else {
>>> 267: while (blockMultipleLength > 0) {
>>> 268: processBlock(buf, BLOCK_LENGTH);
>>
>> For nati
> Regarding mainline:
> - I decided not to 'unroll' the top while loop (i.e. `engineUpdate(byte[]
> input, int offset, int len)` is unrolled)
>- It is debatable which version is easier to understand. If this version
> is 'too complex', I can unroll the top while loop.
> - I do think this ver
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 23:33:32 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
> Regarding mainline:
> - I decided not to 'unroll' the top while loop (i.e. `engineUpdate(byte[]
> input, int offset, int len)` is unrolled)
>- It is debatable which version is easier to understand. If this version
> is 'too comp
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 23:33:32 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
> Regarding mainline:
> - I decided not to 'unroll' the top while loop (i.e. `engineUpdate(byte[]
> input, int offset, int len)` is unrolled)
>- It is debatable which version is easier to understand. If this version
> is 'too comp
16 matches
Mail list logo
