Quote from: BloodyRookie on January 15, 2014, 03:40:43 PM

Hmmm...chrome is indeed faster but even on a 3GHz maschine I don't get your results:

Code:

Javascript needs 12.22ms/getPublicKey
Javascript needs 26.24ms/sign
Javascript needs 21.18ms/verify

What am I doing wrong?

Quote from: BloodyRookie on January 15, 2014, 03:40:43 PM

Hmmm...chrome is indeed faster but even on a 3GHz maschine I don't get your results:

Code:

Javascript needs 12.22ms/getPublicKey
Javascript needs 26.24ms/sign
Javascript needs 21.18ms/verify

What am I doing wrong?

Just runned in ff26: 22ms(avg)/sign 16ms(avg)/verify.

As i can see it depends on loop count(more loops - better time) and browser wish(sometimes it do everything slower(extensions, synchronization, etc??).

We should test everything in same environment

I would be appreciated if Jaguar0625 measure time for my latest version(which use rev22 math with some optimizations).

Quote from: BloodyRookie on January 15, 2014, 03:50:37 PM

@hoax: I don't think your version of is_negative is compatible with the java version, or is it?

Code:

/* checks if x is "negative", requires reduced input */
function is_negative(x)
{
return x[0] & 0xFF >= 0x80;
}

This check for overflow. Tested on Jaguar0625 tests(generated from Java) and get 100/100 passed, so... You can correct me if i'm wrong.

And you can remove in your sources second argument from

Code:

SHA256_write(m, m.length);

it was my copy-paste typo, sorry Sad