[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4fbbfba639081c8debd9f5db67efa30@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:57:42 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation
On 2012-06-17 18:54, magnum wrote:
> On 2012-06-17 17:51, Solar Designer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:38:01PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>>> I built with the -native target so I should have got the same speed as
>>> you for Simon's format. But 22600K is the best I get from the
>>> fluctuations. Any idea why?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> Is an -xop build different in some way?
>>
>> It should be the same, but you could want to check the binary.
>
> I checked the code and the behavior of gcc and from what I can see there
> should be absolutely no difference with the #ifdefs so this must be
> something with the gcc optimizer. But we do get a different
> taviso_fmt.o. Maybe I'll dissect them some rainy day.
Here's all differences in the pre-defined macros from gcc (on Bull), in
case there is a clue:
With -xop but not with -march=native:
__k8
__k8__
With -march=native but not with -xop:
__tune_bdver1__
__ABM__
__PCLMUL__
__bdver1
__bdver1__
__LWP__
__AES__
__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_16
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.
