[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120105181349.GA11503@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:13:49 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: gcc versions
magnum -
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:59PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> gcc version: gcc (gcc version 3.4.6)
> Best paras:
> raw-MD4: 1 (13852K c/s)
> crypt-MD5: 3 (9808 c/s)
> raw-SHA1: 1 (6500K c/s)
BTW, right now your tree picks PARA 1 for this version of gcc, so we get:
Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [SSE2i 4x]... DONE
Raw: 4400 c/s real, 4400 c/s virtual
which is twice slower than 1.7.9's original code (with the same gcc).
...and I was wrong about 10000+ c/s - not with this old gcc. Here's
what I actually get with 3.4.6:
Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/64 X2]... DONE
Raw: 8998 c/s real, 8998 c/s virtual
So PARA 3 is in fact a bit faster for this old gcc here, but I am not
comfortable relying on that - it might be a lot slower e.g. on AMD CPUs.
The code is clearly so far from optimal that its performance is likely
unstable across different CPUs. X2 is a safer bet for gcc < 4.0.
As to MD4 and SHA-1, here's what -jumbo-5 picks with gcc 3.4.6:
Benchmarking: Raw MD4 [SSE2i 12x]... DONE
Raw: 13100K c/s real, 13100K c/s virtual
Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 [SSE2i 4x]... DONE
Raw: 4930K c/s real, 4930K c/s virtual
I don't know why the 6500K vs. 4930K discrepancy.
I think we need to benchmark a build with Bartavelle's assembly code,
then decide.
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.
