[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <012e01cd4b1c$e53d4de0$afb7e9a0$@net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:32:53 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation
On Friday, June 15, 2012 11:45 AM Tavis Ormandy wrote
>On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> ...
>I made some slight adjustments to the scheduling, please use the
>attached version instead.
Travis,
Please change this:
- #if defined(__SSE4_1__) && defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__linux__)
+ #if defined(__SSE4_1__) && defined(__GNUC__) && (defined(__linux__) ||
defined (__CYGWIN32__))
I have built on cygwin (with -msse4 instead of -msse2), and it builds just
fine. It is not faster (about 5% slower), but builds fine, and tests fine.
Also, this should be changed. This is the proper benchmark setting for a
non-salted format:
- .benchmark_length = 1,
+ .benchmark_length = -1,
With that benchmark testing changed, my cygwin build now benches this new
code about 5% faster than the raw-sha1 from bleeding.
>From doing a simple 'real' test (-inc:alnum against the sha1 of abc3dr), I
see about ~5% faster with rawsha_sse4 on a cygwin build. 36s vs 38s, showing
that the -1 benchmark value is the correct one to use, to make a proper
comparison.
Jim.
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.
