[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120104204728.GA8521@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:47:28 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: gcc versions
magnum, all -
JFYI, gcc 4.3 is sometimes the fastest:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017#c5
4.3.5 20100502 - 2950K c/s, 28229 bytes
4.3.6 20110626 - 2950K c/s, 28229 bytes
4.4.5 20100504 - 2697K c/s, 29764 bytes
4.4.7 20120103 - 2691K c/s, 29316 bytes
4.5.1 20100603 - 2729K c/s, 29203 bytes
4.5.4 20111229 - 2710K c/s, 29203 bytes
4.6.0 20100703 - 2133K c/s, 29911 bytes
4.6.0 20100807 - 2119K c/s, 29940 bytes
4.6.0 20100904 - 2142K c/s, 29848 bytes
4.6.0 20101106 - 2124K c/s, 29848 bytes
4.6.0 20101204 - 2114K c/s, 29624 bytes
4.6.3 20111230 - 2116K c/s, 29624 bytes
4.7.0 20111231 - 2147K c/s, 29692 bytes
(This is for "Traditional DES", "many salts".)
My hand-written assembly code only does 2780K on the same system; gcc
4.3 outperforms that (likely due to cross-S-box instruction scheduling).
Things are not as good for gcc 4.3 for many other benchmarks, though.
Alexander
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.
