Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > IBM DB2 > Re: UDF ****tab...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 11 of 12 Topic 9074 of 9520
Post > Topic >>

Re: UDF ****tability?

by esmith2112 <esmith2112@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jul 14, 2008 at 01:30 PM

On Jul 12, 4:57=A0pm, "Dave Hughes" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Serge Rielau wrote:
> > That will do. Isn't 1252 Unicode?
>
> No - 1208 is UTF-8, 1252 is windows-1252 (MS' slightly altered version
> of ISO-8859-1 [1]).
>
> I'm tempted to say the codepage thing is a dead-end; after all; there's
> not /that/ much difference between win-1252 and ISO-8859-1 - the only
> way it could make a difference is if you were feeding the routine the
> few characters that differ (none of which are 'abc' as in your earlier
> example ;-), or if the routine internally relies on the encodings of
> these characters ... which I doubt (see below).
>
> I'd be tempted to look at the difference in processors. You state the
> routine is implemented in C, is performing bitwise operations (not
> unusual for a hash function), that the dev machine has a ppc 604 (which
> according to [2] is 32-bit), and that the qa machine has a power4
> (64-bit according to [3]). I wonder whether this could explain it (I'm
> insufficiently familiar with the ppc family to know whether it could or
> couldn't - just curious).
>
> In the meantime, your example of ha****ng 'abc' indicates that this is
> an implementation of the SHA1 algorithm. I'd suggest taking a look at
> the mod_authnz_ibmdb2 article [4] by Helmut which includes C-based UDFs
> for MD5, SHA1, and crypt.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1252
>
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_604#PowerPC_604
>
> [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power4
>
>
[4]http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0407t=
es
> sarek/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

I think I'm in agreement that the codepage is a dead end as well.
Think it's got to be something architecturally. Working on getting a C-
compiler to be able to build it natively. The fact that it works as
advertised on one machine, but not on the other seems to vindicate the
code otherwise.

Verified with my group that it is, indeed, an implementation of SHA1.
Looked at Helmut Tessekar's stuff. His function only returned a
char(33) string. Haven't done C for years, so I'm not ready to tackle
my own mods.

Evan
 




 12 Posts in Topic:
UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-10 05:20:49 
Re: UDF Portability?
Serge Rielau <srielau@  2008-07-10 09:19:39 
Re: UDF Portability?
Udo <udo.weigl@[EMAIL   2008-07-10 07:06:22 
Re: UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-10 07:28:43 
Re: UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-10 08:31:26 
Re: UDF Portability?
Serge Rielau <srielau@  2008-07-10 13:16:14 
Re: UDF Portability?
"Dave Hughes" &  2008-07-12 15:57:39 
Re: UDF Portability?
Knut Stolze <stolze@[E  2008-07-11 12:41:54 
Re: UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-11 05:34:23 
Re: UDF Portability?
Knut Stolze <stolze@[E  2008-07-16 19:32:28 
Re: UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-14 13:30:02 
Re: UDF Portability?
esmith2112 <esmith2112  2008-07-15 13:45:56 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Tue Dec 2 20:53:57 CST 2008.