[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DC7898E.6020100@bredband.net>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 08:28:30 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: John core change patch (and md5-gen, etc)
On 2011-05-09 02:50, JimF wrote:
> I have a pen drive with Unbutu on it now, so can more easily test
> intrinsic code, and get it fully working. But this may take some
> coordination again, to get a good stable version which builds properly
> if a user WANTS intrinsic code, but also builds properly if they do not
> (such as using GCC, or 32 bit systems).
You *want* intrinsics even if using gcc, on 64-bit, if you meant
otherwise. Last I checked (gcc 4.5.1 vs icc 12.0.3.174 and
1.7.6-Jumbo-12+intrinsics+fixes) I got this:
crypt-md5
gcc w/o intrinsics: 10832 c/s
clang w/intrinsics: 18108 c/s
gcc w/ intrinsics: 19284 c/s
icc w/ intrinsics: 28608 c/s
phpass/md5gen(17)
gcc w/o intrinsics: 2321 c/s
clang w/intrinsics: 9744 c/s
gcc w/ intrinsics: 10296 c/s
icc w/ intrinsics: 16152 c/s
phps/md5gen(6)
gcc w/o intrinsics: 4640K c/s
clang w/intrinsics: 15711K c/s
gcc w/ intrinsics: 16167K c/s
icc w/ intrinsics: 23509K c/s
Here is an example where only icc performed much better. If I understand
things right, This format do not have intrinsics but icc managed to do
fine without them, right?
mscash
gcc w/o intrinsics: 13965K c/s
clang w/intrinsics: 13918K c/s
gcc w/ intrinsics: 13937K c/s
icc w/ intrinsics: 30502K c/s
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
